Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PARTY MEETINGS

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) whether disclosures from private party meetings within the precincts would fall within the ambit of Parliamentary privilege.
I do not think that any disclosures from such meetings infringe the law of privilege as it has been applied by the House in the past. Hon. Members will recall that the question has been canvassed but the House has never taken the view that such disclosures would involve privilege. The situation, of course, is quite different from the rule which governs Reports from Select Committees.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and ask you whether that means that you agree with the Report of the Committee of Privileges on 27th July, 1947, which says, at page 11 that
… publication of information about secret meetings of his party by a Member clearly involves a gross breach of confidence but is not in itself a breach of privilege.
May I take it that that applies to any hon. Member, whether he be Prime Minister or a private Member

Mr. Speaker: Before I gave my Ruling I read last night the whole of the Report to which the hon. and learned Member has referred and also the debate in the House which followed it. I have nothing to add to my Ruling.

ORERS OF THE DAY

CIVIC AMENITIES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order, on this Bill, to point out that the civic amenities of London have been so improved—miraculously improved—overnight that it will not be necessary to discuss any Amendments to the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is a most ingenious point of order, which is at least appreciated by half the House.

New Clause No. 4.—(WORKS TO PRESERVE LISTED BUILDINGS ETC.)

(1) If it appears to a local authority or in Scotland a local planning authority that any works are urgently necessary for the preservation of a building to which this subsection applies which is situated in their area or district, they may, after giving to the owner of the building not less than seven days' notice in writing of the proposed execution of the works, take such steps as they consider appropriate for executing the works.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section applies to any unoccupied building in respect of which a building preservation order is in force or which is included in a list compiled or approved under Section 32 of the Planning Act or Section 28 of the Scottish Planning Act other than a building of a description specified in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Planning Act or, as the case may be, the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 27 of the Scottish Planning Act.—[Mrs. Corbet.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.7 a.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbel: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The principle of the Clause was agreed in Committee. At the same time it was considered advisable to redraft the wording to make it more satisfactory. The object of the Clause is to give a local authority an opportunity to prevent such deterioration in a building whose preservation it is considering as would make its preservation impossible.
It frequently happens that the owner of a building finds that he is no longer able to keep it in a state of repair—it is too expensive for him to do so—and he accordingly applies for permission to pull it down. It is then for the local


authority concerned to decide whether or not to allow the demolition of the building. During the period that must elapse before the local authority has made up its mind there may be certain slight damage to the building. A hole in the roof may allow further damp to enter the building, with the ruination of valuable plaster work, or there may be the intrusion of dry rot—damage which very little urgent remedial work would be able to prevent. The purpose of the Clause is to allow a local authority the opportunity to carry out such work, if possible, when it wishes to prevent a building being demolished.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2.—(APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) ACT 1962 TO SCOTLAND.)

Sections 1 and 2 of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962 (which make provision for contributions by local authorities in England and Wales towards the repair and maintenance of buildings of historic or architectural interest) shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications—

(a) in subsection (1) of section 1, for the reference to England or Wales, section 32 of the Planning Act and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, there shall be substituted respectively a reference to Scotland, section 28 of the Scottish Planning Act and the Secretary of State;
(b) in subsection (4) of section 1, for the definition of 'local authority' there shall be substituted the following definitions:—

'local authority' means a local planning authority or a county council or the town council of a burgh;
'local planning authority' has the same meaning as that expression has for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947;
(c) in subsection (1) of section 2, for the reference to exchange there shall be substituted a reference to excambion, and the words in any court of competent jurisdiction' shall be omitted.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That the Clause be now read a Second time.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 54 and 55, which

are consequential, may be taken at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Dr. Mabon: We have taken the opportunity of the Amendment to the Money Resolution agreed last night, and which accommodates new Clause No. 7, to seek to apply Sections 1 and 2 of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962, to Scotland. With the necessary adaptations this will allow local authorities in Scotland to make grants or loans towards the maintenance or repair of historic buildings. Scottish local authorities will thus be put in the same position as those of England and Wales.
To those of my hon. Friends who know the Act intimately and want it to apply to Scotland, I must point out that we shall not have to apply Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. There is a blanket provision in Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, under which local authorities in Scotland, with the Secretary of State's approval, could have made grants or loans, but it is felt by the Government that the provision of specific power is more satisfactory and more likely to be noticed and acted upon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 7.—(LOANS FOR PRE SERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS, ETC.)

(1) The power conferred by subsection (1) of section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 to make grants for the purposes mentioned in that subsection shall include power to make loans for those purposes, and references to grants in subsections (3) and (4) of that section shall be construed accordingly.

(2) Any loan made by virtue of this section shall be made on such terms as to repayment, payment of interest and otherwise as the Minister making the loan may determine with the approval of the Treasury; and all sums received by any Minister by way of interest on or repayment of such a loan shall be paid into the Exchequer.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members who were on the Committee will recollect that Amendments were put down by the hon. Member for


Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and my hon. Friends the Members for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and Dagenham (Mr. Parker) to allow the Minister of Housing in England and the Secretaries of State in Scotland and Wales, acting on the advice of the respective historic buildings councils, to make loans as well as grants towards the repair or maintenance of historic buildings. These Amendments were not called in Committee, as they were outwith the Money Resolution.
The House agreed last night to the Amendment to the Money Resolution and we said in Committee that, subject to that, the Government would agree to draft a new Clause which would also get rid of certain defects in the uncalled Amendments. We have thought it wise to do so. New Clause No. 7 takes power to make loans as well as grants for historic buildings. It is already precedented in the Local Authorities Act, 1962, which applies to England and Wales, and, as I said earlier, we have taken steps to apply this provision in Scotland. There is no dispute over the addition of this new Clause, I believe, but if there is I will answer any questions.

Mr. Sandys: I am most grateful to the Government for bringing forward the new Clause which is extremely helpful and will add to the value of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 5.—(BUILDING PRESER VATION ORDERS IN RESPECT OF PARSONAGES ETC.)

A building used or available for use by a minister of religion wholly or mainly as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office shall be deemed not to be a building of a description specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 30 of the Planning Act or paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 27 of the Scottish Planning Act (buildings in respect of which building preservation orders are not to be made); and accordingly after the word 'purposes' in those paragraphs there shall be inserted the words other than a building used or available for use by a minister of religion wholly or mainly as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office'.—[Mr. Parker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move, That the Clause be now read a Second time.
This Clause was also generally agreed in principle in Committee but was withdrawn so that various details could be tidied up, which has now been done. Under the Planning Acts, a building preservation order has not been made in the past in respect of any ecclesiastical building used for the time being for ecclesiastical practices.
That was assumed to apply only to places of worship, but, in 1964, an appeal was allowed that a Church of England parsonage in Gower Street should not be covered by the Planning Acts. The Clause aims at removing that anomaly. It has been approved by the Churches Main Committee and it means that planning powers now apply to manses or parsonages or any other building used wholly or mainly as residences by Ministers. It does not, of course, apply to churches.

Dr. Mabon: The Government accept the new Clause and I should make it clear that it is acceptable after consultation with the Church of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 6.—(DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES.)

Section 3 of the Planning Act (which provides for the delegation to county district councils of functions of local planning authorities under specified provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if Part II of this Act were included among the provisions specified in subsection (2) of that section and as if the reference in subsection (6) of that section to functions under that Act includes a reference to functions under Part II of this Act.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We are grateful for the help of Parliamentary draftsmen with this Clause, which is an amending one. Part II of the Bill, which deals with trees and forestry, has been drafted in terms of the local planning authorities and makes


no provision for delegation to the county district councils. It is desirable, of course, to connect this with the general delegation provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts, which is what the new Clause does.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Help was given in drafting this Clause, and the Government fully accept it. It is sensible that planning powers in this part of the Bill should be as easily delegated as other parts of Planning Acts and the Government are happy to recommend the acceptance of the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(PRESERVATION OF CHARACTER OF AREAS OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST.)

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 1, line 9, after 'area', to insert or in Scotland district'.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the related Amendment, No. 53, in page 2, line 2, after 'area', to insert 'or in Scotland district'.

Mr. Cooke: The Amendment merely puts the provision of the law in Scotland on the same basis as that in England.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after 'appearance', to insert
'and in particular the open spaces'.
Although the Amendment was approved in Committee, I have been assured by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it will be more appropriate in the Countryside Bill. Having every confidence in a promise to me on behalf of my Government that it will appear there, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 18, at the end to insert:

(3) Before making a determination under this section, a local planning authority in Greater London shall consult with the other local planning authority or authorities for the area to which the proposed determination relates, and a local planning authority outside Greater London shall consult with the council of each county district of which any part is included in that area.
I should point out that Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 27, is consequential on No. 16.
The Amendment puts into words the agreement reached in Committee that local planning authorities outside London should be required to consult the lower tier authorities before designating conservation areas under Clause I. We have in this Amendment the provisions for London and the authorities outside. It is a much tidier and more effective way of doing it.
The Amendment makes it the duty of local planning authorities outside London to consult the county district councils concerned, the boroughs and urban and rural district councils. We have not included parish councils because of administrative difficulties which were discussed in Committee. However, I am sure that it is Parliament's intention that these lower tier bodies should be consulted, although it will not appear in the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 53, in page 2, line 2, after 'area', insert 'or in Scotland district'.—[Mr. Robert Cooke.]

No. 54, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947' and insert Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962, the Scottish Planning Act'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

No. 55, in page 2, line 15, leave out first 'and' and insert 'or'—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

No. 17, in page 2, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 27. [Mr. Robert Cooke.]

Clause 2.—(UNAUTHORISED WORKS ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONTRAVEN TION OF BUILDING PRESERVATION ORDER.)

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move Amendment 18, page 2, line 39, to leave out


from 'the' to end of line 40 and to insert `commencement of this Act'.
This Amendment paves the way for Amendment No. 51.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 40, at the end to insert:
(2) In subsection (3) of section 62 of the Planning Act and subsection (5) of section 27 of the Scottish Planning Act (which penalise the execution of works, in contravention of a building preservation order, by any person being the owner of the relevant building or a person on whom a copy of the order has been served) the following words are hereby repealed, that is to say—

(a) in the said subsection (3) the words from 'being' to 'made'; and
(b) in the said subsection (5) the words from 'being' to "served';
but in any proceedings for an offence under either of those subsections it shall be a defence to prove that the person charged did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the building preservation order in question had been made.
Section 62(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, makes it an offence for the owner of the building to contravene a preservation order. During our discussions in Committee, the view was expressed that it should be an offence not merely for the owner, but for any person, to contravene such an order unless he could prove that he was not aware of the existence of the order. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move Amendment 20, in page 3, line 10, at the beginning to insert 'and'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, we will consider also Amendment 21 in page 3, line 11, after 'shall', insert 'in particular", and Amendment 22, in line 12, leave out from 'which' to end of line 13 and insert:
has accrued or appears likely to accrue to the offender in consequence of the offence"'

Mr. Sandys: These are largely drafting Amendments. The purpose of Amendment 21 is simply to make clear, as was always intended, that the financial benefit is not the only factor to be taken into account in fixing the amount of a fine to be imposed under subsection (2) of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 21, in page 3, line 11, after 'shall', insert 'in particular'.

No. 22, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'which' to end of line 13 and to insert:
has accrued or appears likely to accrue to the offender in consequence of the offence"'—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 3.—(ACTS CAUSING OR LIKELY TO RESULT IN DAMAGE TO LISTED BUILDINGS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from first 'of' to 'and' in line 21 and to insert 'excepted works)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it is proposed that we take Amendment No. 59, in page 3, line 23, at end insert:
(2) In subsection (1) of this section `excepted works' means works authorised by planning permission granted or deemed to be granted in pursuance of an application under the Planning Act and works of which notice has been given in pursuance of section 33 of that Act or which are lawful by virtue of subsection (2) of that section.
Amendment No. 2, in line 29, at end insert:
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any works or actions carried out under a planning permission granted or deemed to be granted by the Planning Act or the Scottish Planning Act or any regulations made under either of such Acts.
Amendment No. 60, in line 30, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 34 and insert:

(a) in subsection (1) for the references to sections 30(2) and 32 of the Planning Act there shall be substituted respectively references to the proviso to section 27(1) and section 28(1) of the Scottish Planning Acts;
(b) in subsection (2) for the references to the Planning Act, section 33, and subsection (2) of section 33 of the Planning Act, there shall be substituted respectively references to the Scottish Planning Act, section 28(6) and the proviso to section 28(6) of the Scottish Planning Act.

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60, which hang together as one, can be taken with Amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), which is, I presume, an alternative to the case put by the Government.
The Clause is intended to penalise minor acts of wilful damage to listed


buildings, not amounting to works of alteration or extension which are controlled under Section 33 of the 1962 Act. Amendment No. 2 is right in proposing that the Clause should not apply to works for which planning permission has been expressly given, but this should not include the wide variety of works which have the blanket provision under the General Development Order. The sponsors of the Bill would, I think, agree that to except these would largely defeat the purpose of the Clause.
General development orders, in both countries, cover just the sort of acts which the Clause is intended to prevent, for example, the removal of tiles from a roof. The fact that an act of this kind is within the scope of the general development order does not necessarily make it legitimate in the case of a listed building. It would also be desirable to exclude from the Clause works of the kind mentioned in Section 33(2) of the 1962 Act, that is, works which are urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health.
The hon. Member for Crosby has been good enough to table Amendment No. 2, with the best of intentions. Both the points which are valid in his proposition are covered by Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. The Government have deliberately put down these Amendments to take up the value of the point made by the hon. Member rather than accept his Amendment, which is good in parts, but, generally, is unacceptable.
As the hon. Member was a little delayed in joining us in this discussion, perhaps I may say to him that if we were to accept completely his Amendment—I concede the first point that he is right in proposing that the Clause should not apply to works for which planning permission has been expressly given, but this should not include the wide variety of works which have blanket provision under a general development order—would largely defeat the purpose of the Clause.
I believe, although I do not want to mobilise opinion too harshly against the hon. Member, that the sponsors of the Bill support the Government in accepting part of the point made by the hon. Member, but not the whole of his Amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment, but will

recognise that there is value in Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 as an alternative to his proposition.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), to give him time to collect his thoughts, that with Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 we are also discussing his Amendment 2.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I am never uncorrected, but I apologise to you and to the House for arriving rather late for the Amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for putting down his Amendment. I know that it is not as wide as mine, but it will carry out the intentions which I had in mind in Amendment 2. I need not say anything further. I am grateful to the Minister for the proper drafting of what I intended.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 59, in page 3, line 23, at end insert:
(2) In subsection (1) of this section 'excepted works' means works authorised by planning permission granted or deemed to be granted in pursuance of an application under the Planning Act and works of which notice has been given in pursuance of section 33 of that Act or which are lawful by virtue of subsection (2) of that section.

No. 60, in page 3, line 30, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 34 and insert:

(a) in subsection (1) for the references to sections 30(2) and 32 of the Planning Act there shall be substituted respectively references to the proviso to section 27(1) and section 28(1) of the Scottish Planning Act;
(b) in subsection (2) for the references to the Planning Act, section 33, and subsection (2) of section 33 of the Planning Act, there shall be substituted respectively references to the Scottish Planning Act, section 28(6) and the proviso to section 28(6) of the Scottish Planning Act.—(Dr. Dickson Mabon.)

Clause 8.—(NOTICE OF INCLUSION IN LIST OF BUILDINGS OF INTEREST.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 41, to leave out Clause 8.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would like to be here today. He has been delayed, but I am certain that he would want to have spoken on this matter, because we all recognise how


deeply he felt in Committee about Clause 8.
In moving the Amendment—I have consulted my hon. Friend about this, and a number of the words which I shall use are indeed his words—I should like to say, on behalf of both myself and my hon. Friend, that we have great sympathy with the object behind the Clause and we would be the first to agree that the position of Grade III buildings is not at present satisfactory.
The Amendment to delete the Clause, which seeks to tackle the problem, is not, therefore, in any way indicative of our opposition to the objective, but arises simply because we do not believe that the method proposed would be workable in practice.
Since the matter was discussed in Committee, we have had further consultation with the sponsors of the Bill and we are grateful for their reasonable attitude towards this matter. I think that in those discussions we have been able to demonstrate to them why we regard the Clause as unsatisfactory and that the Government are anxious to achieve what is our joint objective.
11.30 a.m.
The fundamental difficulty is that the present lists of Grade III buildings are a quite inadequate basis for statutory control and the penal provisions attaching to it. There is no one list of Grade III buildings. They have been notified to local authorities in all manner of different ways; by inclusion in supplementary lists issued with the statutory lists, by inclusion in provisional lists, alongside the Grade I and Grade II buildings, by adding individual buildings to existing lists either by letter or by addenda notes and by giving notice of intention to list. The notifications are of ten strictly provisional and liable to correction; not definitive. There would often be great uncertainty about whether or not particular buildings were listed for the purpose of Clause 8.
An essential feature of the listing system and the controls and penalties attached to it, is that the lists have to be registered in the local land charges registers—in Scotland in the Register of Sasines—because that is the only way of bringing the fact of listing to the notice of subsequent owners. The Grade III lists, if they were to have the effect intended by Clause 8, would also have

to be registered. It is difficult to see how all the different kinds of notification could be entered in the registers in any intelligible way.
One is therefore forced to the conclusion that the Clause would be unworkable in practice. But even if the practical difficulties could be overcome, little or no advantage would be gained. Even when they got notice of proposals to alter or demolish Grade III buildings under the Clause, local authorities would have no more power to take action than they have now. Building preservation orders can be made only for buildings of special architectural or historic interest, and it is immaterial for this purpose whether or not they are listed. Many Grade III buildings are of special interest, but many are not, and the Clause would not make them so.
The proper way to achieve the desired result is by adding to the statutory lists all the Grade III buildings that merit upgrading and any others that may qualify. The sooner this can be done the better. The process is already in train and will be accelerated in future. The listing process has already been very considerably speeded up: last year's output of statutory lists for 139 local authority areas in England was more than five times greater than in any previous year.
It will, of course, take several years to resurvey the whole country in detail, but the historic towns could be done more speedily and they are where the lists most need to be revised and brought up to date. They will, therefore, have priority. My right hon. Friend hopes that it will be possible to complete the surveys of all the more important historic towns within three to five years and, thereafter, to complete the lists for the rest of the country.
In Scotland, we are also doing everything we can to expedite the issue of statutory lists. In answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), on 22nd February last, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland explained some of the difficulties involved in the lengthy recording process necessary for the Register of Sasines. Despite this, hon. Members will appreciate that we wish to be as well advanced in this matter as our English friends.
I emphasise that the Government are anxious to complete these surveys as soon as possible and, as I have said, we want to try to complete them for the more historic towns within three to five years. We hope that it will not be long thereafter that we can finish off the lists for the rest of the country. That is our hope, not only for England, but for Scotland as well.
I am aware how anxious are the sponsors of the Bill about this matter and I am grateful to them for the realistic and fair way in which they have approached the problems that is faced by the Government. I also appreciate that it is a sacrifice for them to accept the Amendment, but I am sure that they will not only be willing to accept the assurances I have given but will wish to test the Government from time to time on the faithfulness with which they are carrying out those assurances. I am sincere in making this point on behalf of the Government and I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and the sponsors of the Bill appreciate that the Government are determined to get this job done properly. We will endeavour, should we remain in opposition for a little longer—

Mr. Sandys: That is unlikely.

Mr. Cooke: —and, as my right hon. Friend says, that does not appear likely—to continue to press the Government to proceed with all speed.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on a related matter; the question of grading. I do not like the word "grade" used in this context. "Classification" might be a better description of the statutory list. The right hon. Gentleman kept talking about Grade I and Grade II buildings. He will concede that such a grade of building does not exist in law because when buildings come on to the statutory list there is no grading at all. One of the great palladian mansions in the countryside could be on the same list as an early Victorian public convenience in one of our great cities.
I want an undertaking that the Government will explore the possibility of hav-

ing a statutory list embracing buildings of the first, second and third classes as well as buildings which, on their own, are not of special significance but which, as a group, have considerable significance. If the right hon. Gentleman will give that undertaking here and now I am sure that hon. Members will be happy to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Although not a sponsor, I hope that I may be considered a friend of the Bill. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in hoping that the Government will give an assurance, preferably this morning but in any case in the near future, about the whole grading system. The present position is anomalous and, as a friend of the Bill, I am reluctant to see Clause 8 go without such an assurance. However, I suppose that we must bow to the Government's wishes in this matter. I was glad to hear the assurance which the Minister was able to give and I hope that he will go a little further, as my hon. Friend requested, about the future of the grading of buildings, remembering that the present position is unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will take early action to remedy this anomalous position.

Mr. Sandys: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends on this issue. I appreciate the helpfulness of the Government in this matter. The Minister will be aware that my cosponsors and I, with other hon. Members, expressed strong views on this subject in Committee. Although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, made the most eloquent speeches—explaining how difficult this was and how unworkable was our proposal—hon. Members of all parties felt so strongly that they voted against the Government and secured a record defeat for the Government in this Parliament. With two Ministers present, the vote went against them by 17 to three.
Nevertheless, we do not wish to exploit our victory and throughout our discussion of the Bill we have wanted to work as closely as possible with the Government. That has been one of the joys of considering this Measure. Although many of us were aware of the position, the Minister explained the practical difficulties of


the proposal made in Clause 8. At the same time, however, he recognised that there is an important and real problem.
What has worried us throughout has been the feeling that although buildings which were in the supplementary list—or, if the term is preferred, Grade III buildings—were in theory given special attention, they at present in fact get no protection, beyond the protection that a building secures that is not on one of these lists. We are therefore reassured, or I am, by the Minister's speech. He has recognised the existence of the problem, and also its urgency. I believe that his approach is the correct one, namely, to enlarge the statutory list and make sure that it includes all those buildings which really merit special attention and special preservation. If the hon. Gentleman has anything further to say in reply to my two hon. Friends, I am sure that it will be appreciated.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in response to the Government's proposition that we should not proceed with Clause 8. The words I have used, and which I repeated towards the end of my speech, were deliberately chosen. They were not used as a simple argument in support of the Amendment, but to give a pledge. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), and I am perfectly willing, on behalf of my right hon. Friends, to look into the matter. In particular, I will promise to consider, with every hope of implementation, the proposed introduction into the additional lists.
I do not know whether it would benefit us now to revise all the previous lists, but I am willing to look into that also. I believe that we should do this in relation to the additional lists, but I am not sure about revising the previous lists. We do not want to spend a lot of time at this stage, when there is priority here, particularly in the historic towns. One of the great problems is that we do not have a comprehensive and final list, so we cannot select our priorities. We know roughly where we should proceed and it is clear that the historic towns should be dealt with first.
I have referred deliberately to completing the conservation in the more im-

portant historic towns, so we are having a priority within this priority, and thereafter we want to deal with the rest of the list—

Mr. Robert Cooke: What difficulty would there be in producing a graded—if we must have that word, or a classified, or whatever word we may use—statutory list based on the grades which were given to the buildings when the provisional lists were made? Those lists have been made now for a considerable number of years, and there were Grade I, Grade II, Grade II starred, in various parts. It would therefore seem very easy to single out at least the Grade I buildings and give them special distinction on a statutory list.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: That is a very fair point, and I think that what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the grades is quite right. The problem is not one of getting a comprehensive list right and in proper order. The hon. Gentleman would be at one with me in saying that what we are primarily interested in is not a complete administrative exercise but the saving and safeguarding of as many of these buildings as we quickly can. This is the choice the Government have to make, and those concerned readily grasp that we are anxious to have something done rather than to have a complete list. I would hope that we would be able to deal with that matter soon after the two to five years period. It is difficult to say how long without knowing the full extent of the problem.
I agree that we had a very efficient Standing Committee in which, I concede, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had a glorious victory, after a debate in which the English Minister was buttressed by two Scots—a Scots Minister and a Scots back bencher not renowned for his slavish adherence to party lines. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) is not here at present, because I was full of admiration for him when he stayed with the Government, unlike anyone else in the Committee. He is a profoundly practical man, and grasped that it is very important that we should have the practical problems thought out. The right hon. Gentleman has been very good in seeing that, as a Minister, the clear choice


is between what we propose and doing something which is administratively sensible but which, at the same time, might stand in the way of the priorities we all accept are necessary.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) associated himself with the Bill in the earlier stages, and has spoken in relation to this Clause, and since he is willing to accept the same—

11.45 a.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The Minister has referred to the survey being made of towns. Is he able to tell the House that a high priority is being given to the capital city of Edinburgh, where many buildings are in grave danger right now?

Dr. Mabon: One of the principal purposes of the Bill is contained in the early Clauses, and I hope that their impact will be such that we can do a lot of work on buildings that we might be in danger of losing if we were to incorporate Clause 8. This is the essence of the Government's argument. I hope that the early Clauses, particularly those relating to conservation areas, will have a major impact on local authorities. I therefore imagine that one of the problems facing Edinburgh will be whether or not the new town should qualify for this category or should be dealt with by the present statutory powers and the additional ones that are sought. This is the centenary year of the new town. The Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland has been in discussion with the Edinburgh planning committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland regards it as a very important matter. The Bill, if enacted, will help us to see that the right method is adopted.
I put it to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have asked questions that the Government have given a very firm pledge of what they mean to do. The debate in the Committee was worth while; in fact, the Government's reverse stirred things up quite considerably in both the Ministry of Housing and the Scottish Office. We want to proceed in the right way. We want to make sure that the Bill has its proper impact. I hope that with the assurance I have given, the sponsors of the Bill will, how-

ever reluctantly, agree to the deletion of the Clause.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Dr. Hugh Gray (Yarmouth) Before my hon. Friend sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene before the Minister sat down, although I think that, in fact, the Minister had sat down.

Dr. Gray: Will my hon. Friend make quite clear why there are so many administrative difficulties preventing a list being compiled on qualitative assessment of all buildings?

Dr. Mabon: If my hon. Friend is kind enough to read my remarks, which were prepared in complete association with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—who spoke very well in Committee—he will appreciate that the essential point is that the present lists of Grade III buildings are a quite inadequate basis for statutory control, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West emphasised. There is no one list of these buildings. They have been notified to local authorities in all manner of ways for inclusion in the lists. They have been notified for inclusion in supplementary lists, and in provisional lists alongside Grade I and Grade II buildings. There has been notification to add individual buildings to existing lists, by letter, by addenda, by notes, and finally by notice of intention. It is therefore obvious that, in the strictly administrative concept, this is not a definitive list, and it is not even an exhaustive list of all the buildings added in their different ways, the half-baked intentions, and so on. That is not a proper way to proceed at all.
We hope that we can make a great deal of change here, but I think that everyone is agreed that we must go to the important points first, and that the buildings in the more historic cities should be taken first. In England we hope to do it in from three to five years and in Scotland we hope to match that progress. In a few years thereafter we hope to deal with the other problem, and if we manage to do that in from five to seven years in both countries it will have been quite a remarkable exercise,


and it will have been done with due regard to the proper priorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(DEFAULT POWERS AND APPEALS.)

Mr. Jasper More: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 6, at the end to insert:
(d) that the place on which the tree is or trees are required to be planted is unsuitable for that purpose.
It was not my pleasure to be a member of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. I understand that in the Committee on what was then Clause 12 there was a certain amount of discussion about the reasons which lay behind an Amendment of this kind. Reading the Report of the Committee, I find that an Amendment in different terms was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and a discussion took place on it.
Here we are dealing with the obligation imposed on owners in certain circumstances to replant trees. Under what is now Clause 11 three reasons are given to an owner in those circumstances to appeal against an Order to replant. One is that the provisions of Clause 10 are not applicable. The second relates to unreasonable requirements of the notice as to
the period or the size or species of the trees
and the third is on the question of amenity or the practice of good forestry.
The Amendment I am moving seeks to add a fourth ground of appeal, that the site on which the trees are to be planted is unsuitable for that purpose. It was recognised in the discussion in Committee that there are only two points which have to be thought about. First there is the question of damage. This is something which, as we know only too well and too sadly, happens, or can happen, to a large extent when new estates are developed and there is a lot of house building and many children playing around the houses. Then intentional or unintentional damage is done to trees. For that reason there is much to be said for giving to an owner under an obligation to replant an opportunity for suggesting, perhaps from knowledge which may be better than that

of the authority concerned, where the replanting should take place.
There are also changes and developments with which we are becoming more and more familiar in road schemes and road traffic. I have had the experience on the main road near where I live, the A.49, of a long-drawn-out dispute about two rather picturesque trees which the road authority says are unsuitable from the point of view of traffic. There has been a long argument about whether, how and when they should be replaced. This bears out the point that road developments make it important to look ahead to see what is sensible in regard to replanting trees.
When this matter was discussed in Committee under the different Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend, the Minister expressed sympathy but he asked that the Amendment should not be pressed so that there might be time for further consideration to be given to it. I move my Amendment in the hope that in the rather specific terms in which it is phrased it may be acceptable to the Government and that we may have this small but positive improvement in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. J. E. R. Hill: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). In general I am in strong support of this part of the Bill because I should like a great deal more attention to be paid to the replanting of trees, particularly when road widening schemes take place. Not enough thought is given to this question.
The Clause is onerous on the owners of land. Earlier in the Clause it is made clear that the planning authority could require trees of a certain size to be planted. Under modern conditions this could mean the planting of very expensive trees. It seems important that the owner should be able to argue about the place in which a tree should be planted. We are apt to think of trees as cheap, but when trying to replace a tree in a permanent position for all sorts of reasons it may be necessary to plant a tree which is comparatively large and expensive. It may not be generally known that in a catalogue one would find prices up to about £100 each. I agree that that would be an extreme case, but there is much substance in this proposal.
The next consideration is that an owner will know more about the future prospects of a certain site than anyone else. In his scheme for managing his land, be it a farm or any other area of private land, there may be certain development plans—for example, the adjustment of farm boundaries, a farm water scheme or drainage scheme—which may go very near to the place where a tree formerly stood. It might also become apparent that a particular spot is prone, either to damage inflicted by human beings, hooligans, or by some form of traffic which goes near the spot.
It would be pointless through lack of appreciation of the future possibilities to insist on the tree being planted at a certain spot. Not only would that involve the owner in probable loss, but it could deprive the public of the expectation of the life and maturity of a particular tree. I therefore hope that the sponsors of the Bill and the Government will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill I can say that we accept this reworded Amendment in the terms in which it is now before us. We were somewhat anxious, as were the Government at the time, about the wording initially put forward. We are anxious not to make these grounds of appeal too wide as that might endanger the wider purposes of the Bill. We accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and on behalf of the sponsors I welcome it.

Mr. Skeffington: I confirm that the Government's advice is that this Amendment should be accepted. It would add another ground of appeal against default action taken by the authority.
I have reread the interesting debate which took place on 8th February when the Government, and I believe the sponsors felt that the Amendment considered then would be too wide and would nullify the main purposes of the Bill, which I do not think anyone would desire. The present Amendment seems most reasonable and practical. The Government therefore advise that it should be accepted. Amendments 63, 64 and 65, which are the application of this provision to Scotland, also seem to the Government to be wise.

Amendment agreed to.

12 noon.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 8, line 38, after 'satisfied' to insert '(i)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that the House should also take Amendments Nos. 64 and 65.

Miss Harvie Anderson: In view of the assurance which has just been given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I shall confine what I have to say on these Amendments to a very short compass. They are the Scottish application of Amendments already approved.
The importance of this part of the Bill is undoubted. It is, perhaps, particularly important in the central belt of Scotland, where there is fast development. I draw the Minister's attention to a practical consideration. I have heard from two reliable sources that 40 fine trees will be felled at Laurelhill in Stirling. Clearly this is a case where a preservation order should be made. Equally clearly, it is necessary for a replanting order to be made in due course if it be essential to fell, which I very much doubt. If the excuse of siting or other excuse is offered, it points to the necessity of narrowing the opportunity of default, which is the object of the Amendments recently approved and of these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 64, in page 8, line 41, after first 'or', insert '(ii)'.

No. 65, in line 44, after 'forestry', insert:
'or
(iii) that the place on which the tree is or trees are required to be planted is unsuitable for that purpose;'.—[Miss Harvie Anderson.]

Clause 12.—(PENALTIES.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, Amendment No. 56, in page 9, line 28, after 'tree' to insert:
'or of topping or lopping a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it'.
We had a considerable discussion on the question of penalties in Committee. The sponsors were concerned lest the increased penalties proposed in the Bill should be related purely to the offence


of cutting down or wilfully destroying a tree. It seemed to us, then, as it still does, that there were other forms of serious damage which would eventually lead to the destruction of a tree and that these might not be included as the Bill stood after the Committee Stage.
On behalf of all the sponsors, may I express gratitude to the Government in that, after further discussions, we have reached a satisfactory compromise in the Amendment, If the House agrees to accept the Amendment, which would bring in the question of
topping or lopping a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it
we should meet the arguments raised in Committee and would satisfy all the sponsors of the Bill. I understand that the Government are in agreement with this.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am very happy to add my support to my Friend the Member for—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the hon. Gentleman's "honourable Friend".

Mr. Jackson: I accept your correction, Sir. The way the Clause will operate will depend to a large extent on what is understood by the notion of destruction. I understand that a tree can be destroyed by destroying its character. Through topping or lopping, a tree may nevertheless live, but as a tree it is destroyed. I ask the Minister of State to confirm that it is the intention to institute prosecutions against persons who destroy the quality of a tree. That tree may nevertheless live, but it will be effectively destroyed visually as a tree.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter Jackson) COI raising this point. This was the point on which I suggested that "mutilate" might be appropriate. The Amendment has mutilated my proposal. To me, "mutilate" means "mutilate". Everybody else, even courts of law, would know what the word "mutilate" meant. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has sought to alter what I suggested only because there is some legal difficulty, perhaps to do with Scottish law, which does not allow the word "mutilate" to be included.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Dr. Dickson Mabon indicated dissent.

Mr. Cooke: Perhaps there is some legal difficulty, however. Lawyers are always making difficulties. Perhaps the Minister of State, in reply, will make it clear to the hon. Member for South Shields that it is not much use the House saying that this is what we intend it to mean. It is what it means in court that matters.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to an Amendment which is not on the Notice Paper. The Amendment before the House does not include the word "mutilate".

Mr. Cooke: I have made my point, Sir, and I hope that I have not gone too far out of order. I want this to mean what we all desire, not only between ourselves by agreement, but also in the courts, which is where these matters will be tried.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I did not have the advantage of taking part in the earlier stages of the Bill. I have some knowledge and experience of the difficulty, in both town and country. of deciding on a question such as we are now discussing.
If the Amendment is approved, the Bill will provide as follows:
In relation to an offence of cutting down or wilfully destroying a tree or of topping or lopping a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it.
There are few people, either in the House or outside, who can say for certain at a time when a certain type of tree is pollarded or topped that the tree will die. In other countries, particularly France and Italy, the practice of pollarding is much better known to what I would call town foresters than it is in many towns in this country.
There is scope here for an improvement in forestry knowledge. There is also scope for improvement of knowledge amongst those who will have to judge, either in the local authority or in a court of law, whether the pollarding of a certain type of tree will eventually lead to the tree's death.
This is a complicated matter. It is known, for instance, that lime trees, and some nut trees, if they are pollarded fairly heavily, will recover with great ease. On the other hand, if pollarding or topping is carried out to poplars, which are dangerous trees to have in


towns, which can do a great deal of damage to the foundations of any building within 100 feet of them, and which, incidentally, drink over 12,000 gallons a year, they may not be destroyed, but their form may be so destroyed that they are totally unrecognisable as individual trees.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has had more opportunity than I have had of talking to his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and, therefore, I do not wish to say anything which would embarrass him. I would just point out this difficulty. If people who sensibly pollard their trees with their forestry knowledge, whether in town or out of town, are to be threatened with a fine of £250, I think that is an excessive penalty. The Minister may be able to clear up this matter for me, but I think there is a larger question here than was foreseen by the hon. Member for South Shields. I just say this as a caveat, a word of warning, that in these times, forestry knowledge is limited to comparatively few people in this country when it comes to the question of topping or lopping or, as I prefer to call it, pollarding.

Mr. Skeffington: The Government advise that this Amendment should be accepted. It is an attempt to reconcile the two points of view which were stated in Committee. The sponsors of the Amendment rightly pointed out that it is possible so to mishandle a tree and to mutilate it, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) would like to put it, that ultimately the tree is destroyed.
I speak with some knowledge of this subject because I am at the moment dealing with an elm tree which was so badly lopped a few years ago that the tree has decayed, and the whole tree may now have to come down because it may become dangerous. On the other hand, unless we are careful how this question is defined, we might, as was feared by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), expose people who merely lop off the odd branch to a penalty. The Government, having considered this matter very carefully, feel that this Amendment provides the right compromise.
The hon. Member for Hereford referred to knowledge of the subject, and I Agree that this is one of the difficulties, particularly when one gets outside the normal sort of forestry management. There are certain societies—the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and I are both associated with one—which endeavour to spread, by proper training, real knowledge of what is called tree surgery so that expert advice and help are available. In any dispute in this matter, evidence would have to be adduced as to whether or not the action taken was reasonable in all the circumstances.
I was asked whether the Amendment would go so far as to deal with what might be called the artistic or ornamental characteristics of a tree. The Amendment does not go as far as that. The Government took advice as to whether the word "mutilate" could be used, but it would be far too wide and almost incapable of precise definition. It is not much use having in the Bill a word of that character if it is not possible to adjudicate upon it should the matter be taken to a tribunal.
In all the circumstances, we feel that this Amendment deals with a category of harm to trees which could cause trees to die, and we therefore hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 57, in page 9, line 36, leave out '12(1) of the Forestry Act 1951' and insert
'17(1) of the Forestry Act 1967'.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 14.—(PROVISION OF REFUSE DUMPS.)

12.15 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 10, line 32, to leave out 'accumulated' and to insert
'falling to be disposed of'.
The majority of the Amendments in my name are drafting, but there are two which have an element of principle behind them.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that all business refuse is excluded from the scope of the duty laid down in the Clause. The present wording
refuse accumulated in the course of a business


might be held not to apply to business refuse which did not accumulate—that is, rubble—from a building which had fallen down.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 11, line 1, after 'may', to insert:
(a) permit, on such terms as they think fit, the deposit at a place provided by them in pursuance of this section of refuse falling to be disposed of in the course of a business.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 10, line 36, at end insert:
Provided that refuse accumulated in the course of a business may be deposited where the authority so agrees and on such conditions as the authority thinks fit.
Amendment No. 31, in page 11, line 2. leave out from 'at' to 'sell' in line 3 and insert 'such a place and'.
Amendment No. 32, in page 11, line 6, after 'to', insert 'accept and'.

Mr. Cordle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 30.
This Amendment was drafted to take care of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) in Amendment No. 5. Although local authorities have no duty under the Clause to provide places for the deposit of business refuse, they may have no wish to exclude it under conditions determined by them, that is, as to the nature of the refuse and the payment to be made.
The Amendment makes it clear that business refuse may be accepted on terms laid down by local authorities, and it enables authorities to take advantage of the incidental provisions of the Clause in relation to that refuse, such as the provision in subsection (4) relating to agreements with other people for receiving refuse.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I support the Amendment. It covers the purpose of Amendment No. 5 to which I and my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and Ludlow (Mr. More) have put our names.
As I understand this Amendment, it enables a local authority to have separate rubbish dumps and not necessarily to allow business rubbish to be added to a

rubbish dump which is to take, as it were, personal rubbish. This is very important for the countryside, because a great deal of rubbish is brought to the countryside and dumped, partly because there may be no satisfactory place for it in the immediate locality.
It is only too common for farmers and landowners suddenly to see a load of rubbish which has obviously been tipped during the night—often builders' waste—and which, if only there were facilities available in the district, might on payment have been much more cleanly and satisfactorily disposed of. I appreciate that this does not apply only in the country. Quite recently, I was shown some of the Save the Children Fund projects in London, and I saw a street in which there was a succession of heaps of builders' waste which had been dumped overnight. I did not realise that it could happen like that, almost in the heart of London.
Therefore, anything which enables a local authority to provide facilities for commercial waste has the strong support of myself and my hon. Friends and, of course, of outside bodies such as the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association.
I am not quite clear about what constitutes commercial rubbish accumulated
in the course of a business".
However, I would suppose that much of the rubbish from the business of farming would be comprised in that definition, and this is becoming an increasing problem. The number of non-returnable plastic containers for sprays and fertilisers which are durable and unsightly is increasing. Therefore, unless in the rural areas local authorities have a permissive power to make it easy for farmers to dispose of rubbish which they cannot get rid of on their farms without creating an eyesore, not merely farmers, but visitors to the countryside will suffer.
I hope that the sponsors of the Bill accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Government join the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) in expressing thanks to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and his colleagues for Amendment


No. 5. However, it is technically defective, although the principle is very sound. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch is perfectly right in saying that Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 meet the point which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South seeks to achieve.
We believe that comparable powers exist in Scotland, but, having looked them up, we think that they are rather obscure. We should, therefore, like the Amendment to apply to Scotland and England to make it absolutely clear what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South and his colleagues have in mind. That is the purposes of Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Government's view that those three Amendments are preferable technically to his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 31, in page 11, line 2, leave out from 'at' to 'sell ' in line 3 and insert such a place and'.

No. 32, in page 11, line 6, after 'to', insert 'accept and'.

No. 33, in page 11, line 41, leave out from 'area' to end of line 2 in page 12.

No. 34, in page 12, line 4, after 'area', insert 'of a local authority '.

No. 35, in page 12, line 15, at end insert:
(9) Nothing in subsection (7) or subsection (8) of this section shall prevent the exercise by a local authority of any powers which, apart from those subsections, are exercisable by them by virtue of subsection (1) of this section.—[Mr. Cordle.]

Clause 15. —(PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORISED DUMPING.)

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 12, line 17, after 'vehicle ' to insert:
'or any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle'.
As it stands, Clause 15 makes it an offence to abandon without lawful authority
a motor vehicle on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway.

The Amendment is designed to bring within the scope of the offence the abandonment on such land of the residue from the breaking-up of a vehicle, which would not be a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Bill.
This activity is a particular problem in some areas and is as damaging to amenities as the activities caught by the Clause. It should be noted that the activity would not be caught by subsection (1,b) because the residue rubbish will not have been brought as such to the land for the purpose of abandoning it.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: It is with some regret that I find myself in opposition to this Amendment, because I think that I can claim, without boasting, to have taken some part, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), in the formation of the Civic Trust, from whose inspiration much of the Bill stems. However, I oppose the Amendment because it seems to go so far as to make the position almost untenable. I am sure that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) has in mind is the abandonment of what I call the carcase of a motor vehicle. But the Amendment does not say that, It refers to
any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle".
May I quote an example from my personal experience? I had the misfortune the other day, when it was windy, to have the blade of my windscreen wiper blade blown off. I was unable to retrieve it as I was travelling at a reasonable but permitted speed. It was, therefore, not found. Clearly, the blade is something which appears
to have formed part of a motor vehicle",
but there is no suggestion that it was part of the apparatus for deep sea diving or for dealing with oil contamination. It could be proved to have formed part of the motor vehicle. But I should be a rather sorry figure if I appeared in court in breach of the proposed provision because I allowed something which appeared to form part of a motor vehicle to be left on the highway.

Mr. Channon: The test is whether my hon. Friend had abandoned it. If it merely fell off at speed, does he submit


that the court would find that he had abandoned it?

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: If I had thrown a baby out of the window of my car when travelling at speed, I could certainly be said to have abandoned it.
This brings me to a major question, which is how to trace the ownership of these abandoned vehicles or parts of vehicles. A large number of abandoned vehicles are not the property of those in whose names they are registered. They are the property of hire purchase companies which have sought to repossess them and have failed to do so, and the vehicles have been abandoned. Therefore, the mischief of the Amendment will fall not on the guilty owner, even in the case of the carcase of a motor car, but on the hire-purchase company which is financing it and which will already have made a considerable loss due to the defaulting of the hirer. The situation will be very complicated.

Mrs. Corbet: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the wording of the Clause, which places the responsibility for the abandonment and the penalty firmly on the shoulders of the person who does the abandoning?

12.30 p.m.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: That is very good. The problem is still how to trace the abandoner or owner. He can only be traced through the number plate and great difficulty will be caused to the hire-purchaser—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right when he said that the car can only be traced through the number plate. I have made some investigations into this. Every motor car has a chassis number. This is something which should not be overlooked and it is well known to local authorities for tackling this matter very efficiently.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am very glad, and I think that this will set a lot of minds at rest, but I still think that when we are dealing with parts of a motor vehicle, the necessary protection afforded by the number plate and the chassis number may not be available. This is a piece of very loose drafting. I have no doubt that there will be an attempt to

gloss over it and there will be some suggestion that only the size of the thing
… appearing to have formed part of the motor vehicle.
will be taken into consideration. We are here to make laws not to interpret them. That is the duty of others.
I suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends that this is something which does not make sense at all in the context of what we are trying to do, which is to improve amenities. The words
… any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle
go far too wide for anyone in the courts to have any idea of what it is about. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, with his great devotion to this, should have allowed this very lax piece of wording to have got into a Measure which will be of modest assistance. This is a genuine attempt to improve amenities. We cannot start off by saying things which do not stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.
This Amendment has surely not been sponsored by anyone with legal training, although if it has been drafted by the Department, I take back what I say. I would be very surprised if the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would have put its name to an Amendment phrased in these very wide terms. Pending further clarification, I must reserve my position.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I must emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) that his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), whose names are attached to this Amendment, have taken very careful advice from the Government. We have gone into this matter quite thoroughly with both Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I think that the hon. Gentleman was arguing his case more along the lines of Amendment No. 37 than Amendment No. 36. I do not quarrel with him on this, because he was attempting to argue on the question of losing or abandoning. When we come to Amendment No. 37, which, again, is an Amendment tabled by the


sponsors of the Bill, with the Government's complete acceptance, we can discuss this.
We have not done this lightly. It has been a matter for great discussion between the sponsors and the Government. We have had several meetings and the draftsmen have gone into this matter as thoroughly as possible. It is not a loose and fancy-free way in which we have proceeded. I hope that he will not be too harsh with his hon. and right hon. Friends. We must take into account the hon. Gentleman's argument, however. I am certain that we need to look at this from a drafting point of view to get it quite right.
I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman's objection is, in principle, to this Amendment. I am trying hard to see this, but it seems that the case put up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch was quite sensible. We are anxious to bring in the parts of the motor vehicle so that we get it absolutely right because this Clause deals with the clearance, not just of the vehicle as such, but of any part of it. That is the intention. With regard to the onus of proof, this comes in the argument on Amendment No. 37, and here I think that the hon. Gentleman might be concerned—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Amendment No. 36 at the moment.

Dr. Mabon: I realise that I am in breach of order, but the hon. Gentleman was, if I may say so with respect, arguing the case principally on Amendment No. 37.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been out of order I would have called him to order. I thought that he was arguing Amendment No. 36.

Dr. Mabon: So did I, Sir, but unless I am very stupid this morning, I cannot quite see the point of the argument which the hon. Gentleman advanced on Amendment No. 36. Taking the whole Clause, as it would be rewritten with the intention of the sponsors, on the Government's advice that it gets to the point which we have discussed at considerable length in Committee, I am content to leave any further argument on the hon. Gentleman's observations until our next debate.

Mr. Cordle: Further to that, perhaps I may help my hon. Friend on this point. This Amendment deals with the problems of gipsies, and others who strip cars, leaving bits and pieces about the place, usually causing a very serious litter. The effect of the Amendment is to apply the penalty to motor vehicles and anything appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 12, line 29, to leave out from 'that' to 'unless' in line 30 and to insert:
'he may reasonably be assumed to have abandoned it or to have brought it to the land for the purpose of abandoning it there shall be deemed to have abandoned it there or, as the case may be, to have brought it to the land for that purpose'.
This Amendment was drafted with the full approval of the Government, indeed by them. The effect of subsection (2) at present is to shift the onus of proof on the question of abandonment on to the alleged offender if he left the thing in such circumstances or for such a period that it may reasonably be assumed that he abandoned it.
It is directed against a possible defence to proceedings under the Clause that the intention was to retrieve the vehicle or thing and that it was not therefore abandoned. The Amendment shifts the burden of proof in the same way on the question of whether the thing was brought to the land for the purpose of abandoning it there and is directed against an unmeritorious defence to proceedings on the grounds that the thing was not actually brought to the land for that purpose, that is that even if it were abandoned, the intention to abandon was not formed until the thing was there.
This Amendment bites only on abandoned things, other than motor vehicles. In the case of the latter it is not necessary to prove that it was brought to the land for the purpose of abandonment. This is the essential difference between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1).

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: It is not my wish to appear as the Devil's advocate in this matter. I particularly do not wish to be pleading the case of those who fill the sides of our roads with litter. I am very conscious of this because, living in


the County of Kent, I cannot go through the small towns neighbouring the Greater London area without being conscious of the enormous rash of caravans to this area. They are not caravans in the old sense, the sense of the Raggle taggle gipsies, with the dog and the horse. These are mobile homes, pulled by motor lorries. They are now camped on the side of the main road, but they are in no sense abandoned. I do not think that the Bill deals with them. I am not here to defend them, but I do not think that they come under the Clause.
I should like the sponsors to tell me what happens to the person whose car breaks down. Sometimes cars which break down are in such a parlous state that the person from the garage has one look and says, "I will charge you a fiver to tow it away, and all you will get is the scrap value for it." Such a car would not be brought to that piece of land for the purpose of abandonment, but it has been abandoned because the owner, perhaps not having the means, simply is not prepared to pay the garage for towing it away.
Is he to be subject to prosecution as a result? It may well be a good thing that he should be prosecuted; I would not wish to argue that. But I am interested in what defence he has because he has dumped the vehicle on that land and abandoned it when he meant to do nothing of the sort. Really, the car has abandoned him.
I put these questions because I have the privilege of sitting on the bench and I can visualise a very large number of headaches arising from points of this sort. They will be argued by intelligent young barristers, and a great many very stupid, unpaid magistrates will have to deal with these very intricate matters. All they can do is to refer to the Bill, and what consolation do they get from that? So I should like the sponsors to tell me how they would deal with these points.

Mrs. Corbet: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 14 which says that it shall be the duty of the local authority to provide places where refuse may be deposited at all reasonable times. So the man whose car breaks down and who does not want to pay the garage £5 for towing it away can have it deposited at the place which the local authority pro-

vides. This will probably be done at a small charge.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Even if that is so, I still think that a young barrister would have no difficulty in defending his client by asking where the local authority has provided a special dump and which local authority has done so. Do the sponsors think that every local authority will provide a dump as soon as the Bill becomes law? I do not think so.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had completed his speech.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: No, Mr. Speaker. I gave way to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker: I am so sorry.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Still speaking from the point of view of a stupid, ignorant magistrate, I wonder what the devil one will do. I will not name a local authority, because that would be casting aspersions, but I can think of several local authorities in the area covered by the court in which I sit which would not be very forward in providing such dumps. I think that the barrister would find it very easy to tie up the police witness, perhaps by saying "Yes, but the dump is 15 miles away and it would cost my cient £10 to have his car towed there."
Then the magistrates will have to say, "Shall we convict the man or not?" I know that the magistrates on my bench would scratch their heads and say, "Poor chap. He was doing his best and meant no ill. We will dismiss the case." As a result, the police would find it difficult to bring another case. That is why I press these matters. I am as keen as the sponsors are to see the Bill go forward in appropriate form.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), I cannot help wondering, although I support the principle of the Amendment and the Clause in general, what the position will be if a child who has been given a motor tyre to play with as a hoop rolls it around and then leaves it in a field. It seems to me that, if some one were officious, the penalties to which the child might be exposed would be somewhat excessive.
I hope that the Minister will consider the point more deeply for a later stage. It might be that "lawful authority", at the beginning of the Clause, is not quite the right safeguard. There seems to be difficulty with a child who may wish to abandon a toy on which he does not place much value although it forms part of a motor car and would be covered by both this Amendment and the previous one.

12.45 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am advised that as long as the owner of the car in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) intends to retireve the car—in the case where the vehicle has broken down—he has not abandoned it. One would not need a very clever lawyer to argue under subsection (2) that there was no intention of abandonment on the part of the person who left his car on some land in such circumstances. But if an alleged offender decided deliberately to leave his car there because he did not want to spend any money on getting it disposed of in the proper way, he would be regarded as having intended to abandon the car and to have done it recklessly. Such a man ought to be caught, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that principle. As a result, we must have provision of this kind. If a person intends to abandon his vehicle, he ought to do so in the proper place and pay whatever charge is involved. If he does not, he should be liable to conviction.
The case that has been argued for strengthening the Clause and making it viable is a strong one. We have deliberately sought to shift the onus of proof in regard to abandonment on to the alleged offender. If the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (2) again, he will see that it stands very well. It takes the point that he has made about one being unduly hard on a person who did not intend to abandon the vehicle or any part of it.
Subsection (2) and the Amendment together read:
For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a person who leaves any thing on any land in such circumstances"—
the proposer stressed that—

or for such a period that he may reasonably be assumed
—that is, by the magistrates—
to have abandoned it or to have brought it to the land for the purpose of abandoning it
and so on. It seems to me that the magistrates are given great discretion, and I think that the person who is innocently in breach of the provision will have a good defence.
The Government think—I am sure that the sponsors will agree—that the Clause ought to be strengthened to deal not only with vehicles but large parts of vehicles littering the countryside and in some cases the roads. We are in favour of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.—(REMOVAL OF ABANDONED VEHICLES.)

Mr. More: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 5, to leave out from 'period' to end of line 9.
Subsection (2) of Clause 16 proposes to do two things. The first is to protect the interest of the owner of private land by requiring the local authority to give him notice before removing a vehicle. The second is to relieve the local authority from the obligation
… to remove a vehicle situated otherwise than on a carriage way … if it appears to them that the cost of its removal would be unreasonably high.
The Amendment brings us to the crux of the Bill, because it really concerns a direct conflict between what one might assume to be the wishes of the owner of land and the wishes of the local authority. All of us who have taken an interest in the Bill and support it realise the serious liabilities that it will or may involve for local authorities and obviously we do not want to add to them more than we have to. I least of all would want to do such a thing, for I am closely related to and a keen supporter of the rural district councils. The last thing I would want to do would be to impose on them much increased expenditure on matters of this kind.
We must look to the real purpose of the Bill in considering the Amendment. It is to try to do something comprehensive in the way of improving the


appearance of our country as a whole and getting rid of unsightly litter. It is fair to say that there is no more unsightly litter than the abandoned motor vehicle to which Clause 16 relates.
The matter affects not only the public, who object, not unreasonably, to the sight of abandoned vehicles, but also to the landowner who is apt, much to his displeasure, to find these vehicles abandoned on his land. Subsection (2) distinguishes, quite rightly, between the case of vehicles left on highways or carriage ways and vehicles left elsewhere. But, of course, it is obvious that a local landowner is being discriminated against if a local authority is being relieved from the obligation of removing a vehicle simply because it has been abandoned on private land, which may be only a few yards away from a highway or carriage way.
If a local authority is ill disposed towards carrying out the Bill, this provision provides a very wide loophole. One is always rather reluctant in any form of legislation to let a public authority be judge in its own cause, but that is what subsection (2) does, because the concluding words are:
… if it appears to them"—
the local authority—
that the cost of its removal would be unreasonably high.
It remains for the local authority to say, apparently without argument or contradiction, what would be reasonable and what would be unreasonable. One could find local authorities not well disposed to carrying out the Bill or unsympathetic to private landowners taking the opportunity to evade the objective of the Bill on a wide scale.
That is the principle objection to the Bill and it is not a frivolous one, because anyone who has walked across agricultural land must have been confronted with these horrible specimens of modern civilisation, the rusty, derelict cars abandoned on private property. There is, oddly enough, another objection of a rather different kind to Clause 16 as it stands.
It is surely possible that, if the law lays down a positive duty to remove from the carriageway only, this could act as an encouragement for people to want to abandon vehicles to leave them

on the carriageway. That again would be a matter of grave concern to local communities, because it would increase the possibility of obstruction, especially on rural roads. What is needed, if we are to achieve the objectives of the Bill, is, in spite of the objections of local authorities, to put a wider obligation on them.
I can see the objections that will be raised—for example, does a local authority have to recover and remove an abandoned vehicle lying at the bottom of a deep ravine, which is probably private property, in spite of the fantastic cost involved? Of course, there may be ridiculous cases and we do not want to extend the liability to that degree. But this does not alter the fact that, to leave the Clause as it is, would be to defeat the objective of the Bill on too wide a scale, leaving the possibility that, in certain areas, the duty we hope will be assumed by the local authorities is not assumed because they have the excuse that the vehicle is not on a carriageway and that the cost of removal would be unreasonable.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has pointed out clearly why Clause 16 is unsatisfactory at present. I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), is to reply, because this is as much a problem in South Wales as in any other part of the country. The main point of the Amendment is that the Clause is wrongly drafted and does not extend the responsibility for getting rid of these vehicles as far as we should like to see it extended.
The highway extends from fence to fence. Therefore, where roads are fenced we shall undoutedly, because of number of vehicles on our roads, find that the problem is made worse by this provision. But it will not only be made worse on fenced roads. In parts of South Wales, for example, there are many commons at the side of roads which, of course, are unfenced. As the Clause stands, it would be incumbent upon a local authority to remove a derelict vehicle only from the highway, which would be the area from one fence to another.
We must be careful not to require a local authority to go to great lengths to remove derelict and ugly vehicles from almost inaccessible places. Again, it is a question of the Clause being wrongly drafted. It should be so drafted that the responsibility lies upon a local authority to make arrangements for vehicles abandoned off the highways to be accommodated in dumps, or to be so cut up that they can be destroyed and sent away. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow made the important point that if the responsibility of a local authority is limited to vehicles abandoned actually on the highway—in the case of a fenced road, between the two fences—it will provide an incentive for people who intend to dump their vehicles to do so actually on the highway.
1.0 p.m.
Those who live in or near big cities may find it very difficult to believe, but in rural areas it would be possible for vehicles so dumped between fences on the highway—and therefore on the highway—to remain undiscovered for a long time. This question presents a difficult problem to local authorities responsible for the removal of such vehicles.
Another important question arises in the relationship between agricultural owners and the general public. We do not wish to see every owner of agricultural land locking all the gates along the sides of every road adjoining his land. Unfortunately, this happens in many parts of the country. The question of the relationships that exist between the general public and landowners is an extremely important one, for the reasons which have been put forward the Amendment should be given active consideration by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government have had second thoughts and will accept it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) have been most persuasive, as I expected. There is no difference between us as to the objects we have in mind; the difference lies in the way in which we would achieve those

objects. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hereford about cars abandoned in Wales, England, or even Scotland—with respect to my hon. Friend.
These unsightly abandoned cars, in various stages of decay, mar some of our great areas of natural beauty. Despite the strictures of hon. Members opposite, I am confident that the Clause provides ample powers for local authorities to deal with the situation in areas of natural beauty and other affected areas.
The difficulty is that a different duty is imposed upon local authorities in dealing with carriageways than that which is imposed upon them in respect of land other than carriageways. Local authorities are under an absolute duty in regard to carriageways, but on other land the duty to remove does not apply if it appears to a local authority that the cost of removal would be unreasonably high.
The two hon. Members opposite who have spoken have great experience in local government, and they would not wish to impose an undue burden upon any local authority. The net return of the operation might be very small in some instances, bearing in mind the immense cost that might sometimes be involved in the removal of unsightly vehicles placed in almost inaccessible positions. The Clause has, therefore, been deliberately drafted to restrict the duty of local authorities—except in the case of carriageways—to the requirement to remove only where the expense incurred would not be unreasonably high.

Mr. Channon: Although local authorities would not have a duty to remove vehicles in such cases I am sure that the Minister would agree that they should be able to do so whenever possible, and that they should not do so only if it would involve an unreasonably high cost.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member is right. Power to remove would remain. The reduction of their absolute duty would be limited only by the question of unreasonable expense. Their activity would be strictly limited by the exact wording of the proviso in the subsection. Discretion would be left to them. I have greater confidence in local authorities than do hon. Members opposite. Under Clause 16(6) the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State may exercise


his authority to require a local authority to act, after a mandatory local inquiry, when it has failed in its duty to remove an abandoned vehicle properly.
I think that that covers both sides of the coin and insures a completeness in respect of the duty and powers of local authorities, and in those circumstances I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), I am worried about this question and about the limitation on undue expense being incurred by local authorities. The Minister seems to have failed to appreciate the change in technique of abandoned motor car dumping. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford has pointed out that on the perimeter of any large town or conurbation the agricultural community is forced to lock all its gates. This is very unattractive and inconvenient for people who want to go about their legal and justified business.
The motor car dumper is also faced with a problem. He has to get the car to the place where he is going to dump it illegally, and it must, therefore, have wheels on it. When he has placed it in position, however, he wants to take the wheels off, because they have some value. It is clear that he will not want to do this on the edge of a large town. It is also interesting to note that there is a tendency for the dumping of motor cars on the edge of main roads and on motorways—with their inviting grass verges—to cease, because of the high scrap value of parts that the dumper wants to take away after the vehicle is dumped. The operation must, therefore, be done in the most rural places where it is expensive for local authorities to recover the vehicle, once the wheels and tyres have been removed and the engine number chipped off to prevent identification.
The Clause will not be effective with this limitation on undue expense. In a constituency like mine, in Lincolnshire, at the edge of an enormous northern conurbation with a growing industrial centre just across the Trent, the byways and bridle ways are the best possible

places for these illegal activities. It is shattering to see how many vehicles are dumped on green lanes when the lanes are hard and dry, which become an eyesore only in the winter when the leaf is off the trees and hedges. The local authorities then have to get a wheel-less vehicle out of a lane and have to hire expensive equipment for the purpose. This goes on in the summer, but the eyesore is not seen until the winter.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this point again, as we will spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar if we do not allow the local authorities to spend the necessary money to tidy up the countryside.
I see the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) opposite. His constituency is by far the best managed area of the countryside. It is surrounded by the largest population, but remains the most beautiful part of England. I should be interested to hear his views. Even behind those efficient stone walls and lurking in the stone pits and quarries of the High Peak area there is rarely an unsightly vehicle. The Derbyshire County Council and the High Peak authority do a magnificent job. Under the arrangements of the High Peak National Park, there is no limitation on the amount the council can spend to remove unsightly vehicles.
This is a disturbing aspect of an important and successful Bill. These motor cars are the greatest menace in the countryside. It is lucky that we do not have the problem which exists in Ireland, where derelict cars form an integral part of the farming scene, with many gateways blocked with a wheel or half a car. Fields are partially fenced with derelict industrial waste, collected from the gipsy and tinker camps.
This is not the practice of our agricultural community. People even take the trouble to ensure that, if the gates in their area are mainly four-barred they do not put up five-barred gates and spoil the appearance of the countryside. The agricultural community is free of blame, perhaps because agricultural machinery is too expensive to be left rotting in inaccessible places, or perhaps because the community is so squeezed by the Government that it is conscious of the value of scrap.
The only way to tidy up this problem is to ensure that there are proper facilities to encourage people to dump their cars in the legal places. After all, there is a scheme for some kind of subsidisation of scrap metal of a ship and the Government must consider seriously setting up a proper disposal system for derelict motor cars in the countryside. That will be a great deal more expensive—

Mr. John Morris: I am not sure how far the hon. Gentleman is aware of the Bill's other provisions. I do not want him to misunderstand. The idea of the Bill is that there should be such a scheme and a duty on local authorities, I understand, to ensure that there are adequate dumping places. That meets the gist of the hon. Member's remarks. Perhaps he has not read the whole Bill.

Mr. Kimball: I am aware of the provisions and grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance. I am delighted that he thinks that these facilities are sufficient, but I still think that the Bill is weak if local authorities cannot incur necessary expense to do the job properly.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Parliamentary Secretary has defended the drafting of the Bill. There is no disagreement about the need to achieve a fair balance between local authorities' obligations and the need to prevent the spread of this offence, but I am sure that this drafting wants looking at again.
There is always a difficulty, when legislation is designed to prevent a bad course of conduct, if we seek to limit the offence or any corresponding local authority obligations to the limits of the highway or a public place. This has occurred in similar legislation over the last few years. The evolution of the anti-litter legislation, which is comparable, had to cross this boundary. The original Whitehall conception was that action could be taken about litter in a public place, but not on private land.
As that legislation developed, so did the conception that litter thrown on to private land from the highway constituted an offence. The same happened with the Firearms Bill. In these cases it should not be said that some action is an offence on the highway, but not a

little way off the highway or a bridle path which is a public carriageway.
This is the difficulty in the present Bill. It does not conform to the trend and principles of recent similar legislation, which is why we are in trouble and why it must be looked at again. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the onerous expense on the remote rural authority—

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand. I was talking not about the remote authority, but about the particular difficulty which any local authority may have because of the inaccessibility of a vehicle. The Clause relates only to unreasonably high expense and not to "undue" or "unnecessary" expense. This will apply where-ever the local authority may be.

Mr. Hill: I accept that, but it follows that the more remote authority is more likely to face high expense. If an authority is not so remote and has a very high incidence of car ownership and car abondonment, it may be able to pro-vied these facilities at a lower average cost. Farmland nearest the conurbations suffers most from abandoned vehicles.
The Parliamentary Secretary's case surely does not meet our objection. If a vehicle is left on even the most remote carriageway, the local authority has an obligation to remove it, whatever the cost. This is the difficulty. It is no answer if the vehicle is left on the bridleway and not, for example, pushed into a field. Probably the right course is to examine the economics a little more closely.
If the vehicle is pushed into a field, will the local authority be able to take as the yardstick of expense the cost of removing the vehicle from the field to wherever it dumps it? If so, that is unfair on the owner or occupier of the field bearing in mind that if the car had been left 20 yards nearer the public right of way for carriages the local authority would have had to accept the whole expense.
There is clearly an argument for considering whether the measure of unreasonableness in the expense should not relate to the cost of removing the vehicle from wherever it has been abandoned off the highway to the nearest point of the


highway. This would bring in the concept of equity. It might be very unfair on a local authority to be required to pay the expense of retrieving a car from a roadside quarry or ravine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) accepted. On the other hand, if the same vehicle were left on the road above the quarry, the local authority would have to remove it. Therefore, the test of what is unreasonable expense should be related, in the example which I have given, to the cost, as between the roadside and the quarry.
If we were to think in those terms and make the Bill more specific in that way, that would be a basis for a reasonable compromise. One wants local authorities to try to get rid of abandoned cars. If they realise that they must bear the cost up to the edge of the highway in all cases they will be much more likely to take the Bill seriously and, at the same time, they need not be saddled with the extra and unreasonable expense of particular circumstances. They might be able to make all kinds of satisfactory arrangements with the owners of the land to share the cost of removal with the possibility of recouping the cost when offenders can be traced through their vehicles. A perfectly workable solution could, therefore, be reached.
Because I am sure that more thinking should be done on those and other lines, I feel that my hon. Friends should press the Amendment, unless, as I hope, the Minister will agree to consider the matter again and see whether a more exact and satisfactory definition of expense and of the respective obligations on the local authority and, possibly, on the owner of land on which vehicles have been abandoned can be devised.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I was disappointed by the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, because this group of Clauses are not only some of the most important in the Bill, but are epoch-making. I do not think that any Western nation which suffers from cars as we do has comparable legislation. It is a tremendous credit to the House, to the sponsors of the Bill and the Government, who have helped them, that we should have reached the point of getting the Bill on to the Statute Book.
As we are at that point, why do we put in this escape clause? That is what

it is. I hope that as a result of the Bill becoming law, people will realise that the dumping of cars is an offence, and a costly one when punished by law, and that the practice may reasonably come to an end in exactly the same way as local authorities now collect rubbish.
Getting rid of unwanted cars is a tremendous contribution to the health and enjoyment of the people. Inconsiderate people who dump cars will be taught by the Bill that it does not pay to do so. Now, however, we are producing an escape clause whereby some authorities which are, perhaps, less enlightened than the greater authorities with which we are familiar will say that they will not collect motor vehicles which are a couple of miles off the road because the expense is unreasonable. The vehicles will thus remain, defacing the countryside or blocking the bridlepaths. The habit of leaving abandoned vehicles will spread and there will be, not one vehicle, but a dozen vehicles, because of this unnecessary escape clause.
I entirely support the Amendment. Local authorities will not in practice spend hundreds of pounds removing cars. They will do it on a reasonable basis. The fact that "reasonable" is left for them to interpret may well mean that vehicles which have been driven along a bridlepath will block it from the use of succeeding generations for a number of years simply because a local authority says that it is unreasonably expensive to remove the vehicles.
Why include in this admirable Measure an escape clause which carries the danger of nullifying the good that so many of the Clauses of the Bill will do? For this reason, I support the Amendment.

Mr. John Morris: I want to be reasonable at all times and I do not want to delay the proceedings on the Bill. I am attracted by some of the points concerning definition made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) but I fear that hon. Members opposite have taken undue alarm from the drafting of the Clause. There is no intention of having a general escape clause. The duty is squarely laid upon local authorities.
I must protect ratepayers generally. It would be quite unreasonable to impose upon ratepayers an outrageous expenditure for removing a vehicle which had


been placed in a quarry which was almost inaccessible, which would impose a fantastic duty on the local authority and resulting expense on the ratepayers and might, in the event, achieve very little. There must be a limit to the amount of expenditure that is imposed upon the rates, and I must protect ratepayers generally in this respect.
We all want to achieve the maximum result. We all want to clear as many as possible of these derelict vehicles. That is what we seek to do in the Clause. We impose an absolute duty on local authorities concerning carriageways. As regards places which are not carriageways, there is still a duty on local authorities with the proviso concerning the cost of removal when it would be unreasonably high.
I do not think that hon. Members opposite would wish to impose—or do they—upon a local authority the duty to collect some of these vehicles even though the cost might be unreasonably high and might be charged to the rates. I differentiate the hon. Member for Norfolk, South, who has made a reasonable and moderate speech, from some other hon. Members who have spoken.
I must make it clear that on behalf of the Government I must reject the Amendment. If, however, there is any difficulty concerning definition or the exercise of a discretion by local authorities—I certainly have confidence that they will exercise their discretion properly—or whatever might be the difficulties canvassed by hon. Members opposite—

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am sure that hon. Members who support the Amendment would be happier if my hon. Friend would give an indication of what he understands to be meant by the phrase "unreasonably high". I do not wish to repeat my maiden speech, but that was made on the subject of derelict cars having to be dealt with in The High Peak. Vehicles which must be taken up from the bottom of ravines obviously present a costly business for local authorities. If my hon. Friend would indicate a round figure—an administrative direction to local authorities of the sum of money which he considers would be reasonable to be expended in these cases

—the anxiety of hon. Members who support the Amendment might be met.

Mr. John Morris: With respect to my hon. Friend, this is the very point at issue. The definition of the phrase "unreasonably high" is the crux of the problem and the subject of this discussion. Whatever difficulty might arise, some hon. Members are bound not to be as satisfied as others with whatever definition one arrives at. I am prepared to discuss the matter with the sponsors of the Bill, who are responsible people, to see how we might overcome any difficulty.
I do not anticipate any serious difficulty. I believe that, as drafted, the provision provides the right kind of balance, but in view of the apprehensions of some hon. Members about the matter, I am willing to discuss with the sponsors any difficulty that exists, or is envisaged, to see what might be done about it.

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friends welcome the assurance of the Minister. If the Clause is allowed to go through as it stands there would be value in some consultation taking place between the sponsors of the Bill and other hon. Members who have backed the Amendment and the Government to see whether, between now and the Measure being discussed in another place, there might be a possibility of tightening up this definition.
I have had a great deal of correspondence with the local authorities and local authority associations about the Bill. The gist of the remarks made by them is that they are anxious about whether the duties being placed on them are likely to prove too onerous. On the other hand, the Bill has met with the universal approval of local authorities and is warmly welcomed by them. It is immensely important that we should have their goodwill and positive co-operation if we are to make a success of the Measure. If we go beyond what they think is reasonable, we might produce the opposite effect to what we desire.
My hon. Friends realise that I am second to no one in the House in wishing to deal with the problem of litter, disorder and the desecration of the countryside. The right answer would, I suggest, be to accept, in the spirit in which it was put forward, the Minister's suggestion to have further consultation and


that, meanwhile, the Clause should be allowed to remain as it stands.

Mr. More: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his remarks, particularly since there is room for further definition in the drafting of the Clause to mark out the duties of local authorities. Having heard the fine words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) I am glad to note that before the Bill goes to another place there can be a coming together of the sponsors and the Government; and I hope that the result will be to get this matter better defined to carry out the purpose which we all wish to achieve.
On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move, Amendment No. 38, in line 21 to leave out
'in respect of the vehicle'.
This is a drafting Amendment which deals with the fact that subsection (4), which it amends, provides that vehicles removed by the council of a London borough or the city council must be delivered to the Greater London Council in accordance with the arrangements agreed between the two councils. The Minister of Housing and Local Government is empowered to determine the arrangements in default of agreement and provides for
… arrangements (including arrangements as to the sharing of any expenses incurred or sums received by the council and the Greater London Council in respect of the vehicle …
It is intended that these arrangements should be of a general character and the Amendment is designed to make it clear that they should not be made separately in respect of individual vehicles.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cordle: I bee to move Amendment No. 39 in line 36, to leave out 'of Transport'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Would it be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 40.

Mr. Cordle: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker because Amendment No. 40 is consequential upon Amendment No. 39, which has been prepared by the Government as a matter of drafting by virtue of the defini-

tion of "the Minister" in Clause 24(1), which applies to the whole Bill, modified, however, by the definition of "the Minister" in Clause 22(1), which applies only to Part III. The effect of the Amendment is that the reference to "the Minister" in Clause 16(6) means the Minister of Transport in respect of England, excluding Monmouthshire, and the Secretaries of State in respect of Scotland, Wales and Monmouthshire.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 40, in line 42, leave out from '(6), to end of line 44 and insert
'for the words from "the Minister of Housing" to the end there shall be substituted the words "there were substituted a reference to the duties aforesaid":—[Mr. Cordle.]

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 14, line 1, to leave out from 'shall' to 'period' in line 6 and insert
'have effect during the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Act as if for the words "the duty of" in subsection (1) and "but" in subsection (2) there were substituted respectively the words "lawful for" and 'before doing so and" and as if in subsection (2) the words from "and a" onwards and subsections (6) and (7) were omitted; and the Minister may, by order made before the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Act, provide that this subsection shall have effect in relation to any area specified by the order as if for the first reference to the period of six months there were substituted a reference to such longer'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would it be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 42 and 45?

Mr. Cordle: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This Amendment contains a small element of principle. It has been prepared by the Government to provide that Clause 16 will come into force for an initial period of six months. The Clause has been modified so that local authorities have power, but no duty, to remove abandoned motor vehicles in that six-month period, after which the duty would apply. There might be, after the passing of the Measure, a total period of a year—two periods of six months—before the duty would apply. This will enable the necessary preparations to be made, including the acquisition of land for dumps and pounds. There is also provision in the Amendment to enable the duty on local authorities to remove abandoned motor


vehicles to be further postponed in respect of specific areas, areas to be specified by the Minister in the form of a Statutory Instrument subject to annulment by either House. Under a later Amendment this order would not have to be made by Statutory Instrument but could be made by a Ministerial measure not subject to the Parliamentary procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 42, in line 7, at end insert:
(9) This section and sections 17 and 18 of this Act shall come into force on the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the passing of this Act or on such earlier date as the Minister may by order appoint.—[Mr. Cordle.]

Clause 17.—(DISPOSAL OF REMOVED VEHICLES.)

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 14, line 31, at the end to insert:
(2) The power to dispose of vehicles conferred on a council by subsection (1) of this section includes power to provide plant and apparatus for the purpose of disposing of vehicles.
The Amendment would give local authorities the power to provide plant and apparatus for the purpose of disposing of vehicles. Probably not many authorities would avail themselves of the power—most of them might find it more convenient and cheaper to make arrangements with local car dismantlers and scrap merchants—but in certain areas it might be best for authorities to provide the apparatus themselves.
Somewhat similar powers are given in Clause 14(3), in relation to refuse deposited at the places provided for the purpose, and in Clause 19(3) in relation to abandoned things other than vehicles removed by local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL ETC. OF OTHER REFUSE.)

1.45 p.m.

Mr. More: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 16, line 23, to leave out 'may if they think fit' and to insert 'shall'.
This Amendment brings us up once again to the question of the degree of

financial obligation and liability that the House of Commons thinks it right to impose on local authorities. Amendment No. 8 dealt with abandoned motor cars, and Clause 19 deals with refuse in general.
The first subsection deals with refuse other than a motor vehicle, and gives the local authority discretionary power to remove it. The authority is under no obligation and, unlike the test in relation to abandoned motor cars, the test of cost is not included. By Clause 2 local authorities have certain limitations on their powers, and under subsection (5) of this Clause they have the power to recover the costs, is as provided under Clause 18 if they can identify the person responsible.
Once again, we find ourselves up against the broad issue of the extent to which we should leave a gap, as it were, in the Bill. Once again, we realise that the Bill's overriding purpose is to rid the country of the eyesores with which it is now so much cluttered up, whether they be abandoned motor vehicles or refuse of any other kind. Those of us who have at heart, and I think we all have, the main purpose of the Bill, are understandably disturbed when we find left to local authorities these wide discretions, which may result in nullifying in a wide degree what we want to achieve.
Subsection (3) refers to a number of existing statutory provisions. I do not pretend to know them all by heart, or to know precisely the powers they confer, but I understand that under the Public Health Act, 1936, which is the governing Act referred to, a local authority already has power to abate nuisances on private land, and that that would include a nuisance caused by an accumulation of litter of the kind to which the Clause relates. I believe that I am right in saying that under the Highways Act, 1959, highway authorities also have power to abate nuisances on highways, and that that, again, would include nuisances from the type of refuse with which we are here dealing.
We must, first, ask ourselves whether we think that local authorities, public health authorities or highway authorities have made use of the discretionary powers they already have. If they have not done so, I think that the reason must be that


they consider that the expenditure involved is perhaps too large to justify its imposition on the ratepayers. That brings us, again, to the crux, which is the financial liability involved in tightening up these provisions.
We must face the fact that if subsection (1) of the Clause does nothing more than give a discretionary power—and that is how it appears to me—it is not, in fact, doing very much more than what the existing legislation already empowers local authorities to do. We have to ask ourselves whether the subsection will, in fact, achieve any purpose at all.
The other point to which attention should be directed is the position of the private owner. Very often in these cases the refuse with which we are concerned is deposited on privately owned land. If the local authority so exercises its discretion as not to move the refuse, what is the private owner to do? There is nothing he can do, except leave it there, or have it removed at his own expense. That is not the sort of result we seek from such a Bill as this.
Looking back at the provisions relating to abandoned motor cars, it seems odd that here we should not have equally onerous powers. The Clause might, for example, have referred to cost. I have not included this aspect in the Amendment, but we really must face the main point of principle, which is whether the local authority is to be left in a purely discretionary position or is to be put under an obligation.
As one of those who support the Bill and everything it seeks to do, I should like to see it a really effective Bill over the whole front. It is for that reason that, on this important provision, I should like to see a definite obligation imposed. If the Minister were to say that he would consider once again the question of a definition that would meet the issue of cost and liability, it would be very acceptable to me.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We should all be quite clear about what is being asked. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has asked us to consider the matter of principle. He says that the House of Commons should face the question of making it completely mandatory on a local authority to remove all rubbish, spoil, articles, and material irrespective of

the circumstances. I do not think that he could keep to that idea, and I am glad that he added that he would withdraw his Amendment if he could have some assurance about refining some of the words and leaving the power permissive in respect of certain matters.
The hon. Gentleman referred to cost, but here this item is rather different from that involved in the argument we had about vehicles, in relation to which I join with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it is reasonable to consider again the question of unreasonably high cost. If that argument is sound in connection with motor vehicles, it is sound in the present connection. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was good enough to mention the fact that many local authorities had written to him, and that local authority associations had been in touch with him with regard to what concerned us in our recent discussion. The objections they may have had to that, I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow, are many times greater on this score than on the previous score about vehicles.
I should be loath to suggest that we could make this Clause better, because I am not quite sure in what parts we could seek to improve it. I realise that he would not wish to press this matter on principle and make it completely mandatory. Provided that he accepts that we cannot make the matter mandatory, there is no reason why we should not seek the advice of the local authorities on the points he has made. It is not easy to do this in the same way as we promised to do with reference to the last Amendment, because there would be not only the judgment on the cost but the cost vis-à-vis amenity values.
I imagine that there are certain cases where rubble is discharged into a disused quarry and that may be a laudable thing to do, but then someone might insist that, in law, the local authority must not do so. If we made a blanket provision we might end by making the whole matter absurd.

Mr. More: I suggest that all the cases which come under subsection (5) could be made mandatory, that is to say, where the local authority is in a position to recover the expense.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I wish we were debating that as an Amendment, because


then we could consult the various parties. I would be willing to discuss this with the local authority associations in the light of what the hon. Member said, and specifically this suggestion and any others which arise in the debate or subsequently by correspondence.
I join with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in recognising that we have to carry the local authorities with us. We must not impose on them unreasonable duties. We have to see the value of what they are trying to do and try to get a synthesis of view. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will not press the Amendment. We should have discussions with the sponsors and then consult the local authorities about the suggestions which have been made, or may be made in the near future. That must be done in the near future, however, if we are to get the Bill on to the Statute Book.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: There are two classes covered by this provision. One is
on any land in the open air
The objection that has been raised by the Amendment applies very much to this first part. The provision
any land in the open air
is very wide. We could not expect it to be mandatory on a local authority to remove rubbish on any land in the open air, but there is a different point in
on any other land forming part of a highway".
A highway, by its nature, is defined as something for which local authorities have responsibilities.
This is a unique Bill which is uniquely valuable. In the 12 years I have sat in this House I have never seen anything in the amenity field reaching so near the Statute Book. It is clear that we shall not be able to return to this subject at a later date with ease. It will not be a popular choice for selection in the Private Members' Ballot and I do not think that the Government would give time for a Bill of their own on this subject. It is, therefore, all the more important that the Bill, which is a sort of Magna Carta, should go on to the Statute Book in the best form that we can make it.
The Minister is to have discussions with the local authorities on this point. He should seriously consider whether they should have a statutory obligation in respect of highways irrespective of what they might feel proper in dealing with other places in the open air, which, I agree, is asking for a great deal. The Minister has told us that he hopes to have consultations with the local authorities before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that he can tell us that he will differentiate between highways which are already the responsibility of local authorities and
any land in the open air",
which I agree could perfectly well be left to the discretion of local authorities.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The reason—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that he must ask the leave of the House to speak again. I apologise for not having reminded the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) that he should have done so before speaking a second time on an Amendment. Neither of these two Ministers is in charge of the Bill. It is in the charge of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

Dr. Mabon: With the leave of the House, I speak again on this subject.
The reason why the Bill has gone so far and is of this magnitude is the statesmanship of the sponsors in recognising the facts of the situation and the willingness of the Government to co-operate at every opportunity. The Government, on the other hand, must carry the local authorities with them in this respect. This is the essence of good government. We must genuinely consult local authorities and respect the arguments they put forward.
Local authorities are resolutely against the idea of making this provision mandatory. We shall reopen this matter with them and certainly make the point which was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). I welcome and support his remarks about
any land in the open air
I think that local authorities will stress that to us and I shall draw the other points to their attention. If we cannot carry them with us, I do not think the


hon. Member would want to impede the progress of the Bill. We want to get as much as we can and this is the exercise this afternoon.

Mr. More: I hope that what the Minister has said means that the Government will be willing to discuss with the sponsors the possibility of in some way altering the Clause similar to the way in which we discussed the matter of abandoned motor cars. If that is so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 17, line 5, at the end to insert:
'but any sum received in pursuance of this subsection by a local authority in Greater London in respect of the cost to the Greater London Council of disposing of any thing shall be paid over by the authority to the Council'.
This Amendment was drafted by the Government. Subsection (4), to which the words in the Amendment are intended to be added, empowers a local authority to recover the costs of removing and disposing of abandoned rubbish other than motor vehicles, from the person responsible for dumping it. Outside London, the same authority is responsible both for removal and disposal, but in London the boroughs are responsible for removal, and the Greater London Council is responsible for disposal. The Amendment accordingly provides that in London a borough which receives sums in respect of the costs of disposal by the Greater London Council must pay them over to that Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 45, in page 17, line 8, after 'if', insert:
'it had come into force at the commencement of this Act and as if'.—[Mr. Cordle.]

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 17, line 18, at the end to insert:
'and in subsection (2) of that section for the word "site" there shall be substituted the word "land"'.
This is merely a drafting Amendment. Subsection (6) amends Section 34(1) of the Public Health Act, 1961, in such a way that the words
any vacant site in a built-up area

are altered to
any land in the open area in their
that is, the local authority's—
area".
Section 34(2) refers to the
owner and occupier of the site".
It is therefore necessary, as a consequence of the Amendment of subsection (1), to alter "site" to "land" as in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(ACQUISITION OF LAND.)

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 17, line 39, to leave out from 'Monmouthshire' to the in line 40.
The Clause provides powers for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities for the purpose of Part III of the Bill. In England, excluding Monmouthshire, the Clause as now drafted makes the Minister of Housing and Local Government the confirming authority for compulsory purchase orders for the purposes of Clause 14—that is, the provision of refuse dumps—and the Minister of Transport for other purposes, notably the provision of places to store vehicles while the procedure prescribed in Clause 17 is being carried out prior to disposal.
The effect of the Amendment is to make the Minister of Housing and Local Government the confirming authority for all compulsory purchase orders in Part III in England, excluding Monmouthshire. The purpose is to avoid possible difficulties in submitting orders to two Ministers where, as will probably often be the case, the site provided for the purpose of Clause 14 will also ht- used for storing vehicles pending disposal.

Mr. Kimball: Part III empowers local authorities to provide refuse dumps so that the necessary arrangements can be made for dumping. Why will this not be allowed to happen in Monmouthshire? Is Monmouthshire in England or in Wales?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Berwick-on-Tweed is in England, but it ought to be in Scotland. Monmouthshire is in England, but it ought to be in Wales. I am told that the reason for the exclusion


of Monmouthshire is that we must not get confused between the confirming powers of the two Ministers concerned. In this case the Secretary of State for Wales is involved in the case of housing. To make the distinction absolutely clear, the writ of the Minister of Housing and Local Government extends to all of England less Monmouthshire. Unhappily, it still includes Berwick-on-Tweed, but I will not carry that matter further.

Mr. Ronald Bell: As a former Member for a constituency in Monmouthshire—

Mr. Cranky Onslow: For three weeks.

Mr. Bell: For longer than that—I have always had considerable reservation about the question of Monmouthshire being lumped in with Wales for certain administrative purposes. Is it wise to do it here?
I expect the Minister of State knows the way in which this arose. It was because of the licensing laws. It became expedient to put the boundary east of the industrial and highly populated complex because of the manifest ease with which people could slip across the border from Glamorgan into Monmouth to have a drink on Sunday. Therefore, the administrative grouping of Monmouthshire with Wales began to grow up.
It does not seem to me that, because there is an obvious reason in relation to liquor licensing, it follows that it should become general administrative practice. I do not know whether the Amendment is precisely the chosen ground for canvassing this interesting issue, but here I am. I hear being discussed the proposed exclusion of Monmouthshire from the purview of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and putting it automatically, and without much thought, under the Secretary of State for Wales. This is the way things are happening nowadays.
I take this opportunity of registering my protest. That is almost too strong a word, because I know that opinions vary on this matter. Most of those in Monmouthshire do not think of themselves as being in Wales and do not want to think

of Monmouthshire as a county of Wales. They are Gwent and very proud of being Gwent—something a bit different. The difference is marked appropriately by their being grouped with Wales for some purposes, such as the University of Wales and Monmouthshire, as it used to be called, and for liquor licensing, which is inevitable, and their being linked with England for other purposes.
I should have thought that the Bill dealt with just the kind of other matter for which Monmouthshire could be linked with England so as to give it this twilight characteristic between being a county of Wales and a county of England. I therefore suggest that second thoughts be given to the Amendment in the wider context which I am happy to have had the opportunity of raising.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21.—(AMENDMENT OF ENACT MENT RELATING TO ABANDONED VEHICLES.)

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 18, line 1, after 'alter' to insert:
',in such manner as he considers expedient in consequence of the passing of this Part of this Act,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we can discuss Amendment No. 49.

Mr. Cordle: I agree. Amendment No. 49 is consequential on No. 48.
Both Amendments have been prepared by the Government. They are designed to make it clear that the alterations which can be made, under the powers conferred by the Clause, to the existing law relating to the removal of vehicles and charges for the removal need not be limited to abandoned vehicles. Under the existing law there are cases where vehicles which have not been abandoned can be removed. For example, vehicles which have broken down or which are causing obstruction on roads can be removed therefrom, whether abandoned or not.
When the Government alter the existing law under the powers conferred by the Clause, they desire to modernise the existing law relating to removal of vehicles and charges for the removal generally, not only in its application to abandoned vehicles.
The existing law for removing and disposing of abandoned vehicles will continue to apply in certain cases to abandoned vehicles. For example, the police have powers to remove abandoned vehicles. The existing law for removing vehicles other than abandoned vehicles will continue to apply. For example, the police have power to remove vehicles which are causing obstruction or danger. It is desirable that a uniform procedure and system of charges should apply in all cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 49, line 5, leave out from 'in' to 'and' in line 6 and insert:
'their application to vehicles of any description, whether abandoned or not'.—[Mr Cordle.]

Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION ETC. OF PART III.)

Mr. Cordle: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 19, line 7, after '14' to insert:
'subsection (2) of section 18 and the said subsection (5) as applied by subsection (6) of section 16'.
Amendment No. 62 is consequential on this Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is that certain orders which the Bill authorises will not have to be made by Statutory Instrument but by Ministerial act, not subject to Parliamentary procedure. These orders are, first, an order of the court under Clause 18(2) ordering payment of the charges under Clause 18 for removal, custody and disposal of an abandoned vehicle. Court orders are never made by Statutory Instrument. The second case is an order under Clause 16(6) made by the Minister of Transport, or the Secretary of State, ordering a local authority to fulfil its duty to remove an abandoned motor vehicle in accordance with Clause 16. Since such an order would relate only to a motor vehicle or vehicles, it is not of sufficient importance to warrant its being made by Statutory Instrument.

Mr. John Morris: Needless to say, this Amendment applies to England, Scotland, Wales and Monmouthshire. We were glad to have the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for

Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) who spoke most persuasively. He had the privilege of being a Member for part of Monmouthshire for six—or was it eieht?—weeks.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Four.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 62, in page 19, line 9, after '14', insert:
'and subsections (8) and (9) of section 16'.—[Mr. Cordle.]

Clause 23.—(RIGHTS OF ENTRY AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 19, line 21, leave out '11 or' and insert:
'(Works to preserve listed buildings, etc.), section 11'.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 24.—(INTERPRETATION—GENERAL.)

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 29, leave out from 'Act' to first 'the' in line 30.

No. 26, in line 31, leave out 'respectively' and insert:
'unless the contrary intention appears, that is to say'.

No. 27, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'subsequent enactment' and insert: 'other enactment, including this Act'.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 26.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCE MENT AND EXTENT.)

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 21, to leave out line 14 and to insert:
'Subject to the provisions of subsections (7) and (8) of section 14 and subsection (9) of section 16 of this Act, Parts I to III of this Act, except subsection (1) of section 2'.
This is a drafting Amendment, but I think I ought to explain it. Its purpose is to take account of the special provisions made elsewhere in the Bill for the commencement of Clauses 14, 16, 17 and 18. The effect of Clause 26(2) as amended is that, with the exception of those several provisions and of Clause 2(1) which would take effect immediately, Parts I to III of the Bill would come into force one month after the passing of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 21, line 17, to leave out subsection (3).
Clause 26(3) is no longer needed, since the Clause now makes no provision for orders.

Amendment agreed to.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At the end of a week during which there has been fierce conflict in this House and at elections outside, it is very refreshing today to be debating the final stage of a Bill which has had such very wide support among all political parties, local authorities, civil societies and so many individuals throughout the country.
Once again I should like to express my thanks to the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the hon. Members for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, to the officials of those Departments who have done so much work in connection with this Bill, and to the Parliamentary draftsman for his invaluable assistance in the preparation and shaping of the Bill at all stages.
I am grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the House for their co-operation and I wish particularly to thank my cosponsors who have done so much more than many co-sponsors, who often do no more than put their names on the back of a Bill. My co-sponsors have devoted much time and thought to the planning of the Measure and to the study of the many suggested Amendments which we have received from numerous different quarters.
I should also like—and I am sure the House will support me in so doing—to take this opportunity publicly to acknowledge the debt we owe to the staff of the Civic Trust—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—who have played such a major part in thinking out and drafting this Bill.
I believe local authorities will welcome this Bill and will endeavour to implement its purpose with energy and imagination. This Bill, like all planning legislation, provides new duties, new powers and new penalties, but I trust it will do more than

that. I believe it will give a new stimulus to all who try to improve the surroundings in which they live. I hope that it will help to inspire among our people a livelier sense of civic pride.

2.18 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On behalf of the Government I commend this Private Members' Bill wholeheartedly to the House. I am certain that there will be no dissenting voices on either side.
I recognise that it is an unhealthy thing for the Government and the Opposition to agree too often, and certainly during all the time that I have been in Parliament I have never witnessed such a peculiar situation as we had in the Committee. I have served on many Committees as a back bencher and as a Minister, but I have never seen such a unique performance as we had in the interesting Committee stage on this Bill. The Ministers were totally isolated for a time. Their back benchers had gone over to the private Members' side, which was to be expected. It is a sobering thought for the Government to recognise this, and to inquire further into their own practices and see whether they can be even more helpful than they intended to be. This has been refreshing for Ministers, but I hope it is not an experience that many of us will endure again.
As I said, it is unhealthy for the Government and Opposition to work together too often, but there are occasions when we can work together. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) for his kind remarks and for the appreciation which he expressed to the officials and draftsman at the Government's disposal who have done a great deal of work. We have worked in partnership and the Government are glad of the outcome.
The appearance of our towns and countryside impinges on the lives of every one of us. I do not think it is too much to say that this Bill is, in fact, a Magna Carta of its own style and kind. I commend it to the House and I thank the right hon. Member for Streatham for the energetic and helpful way in which he has taken the Bill thus far.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The Bill contains a number of things for which many of us have striven for many years in the


House. I echo all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said about the co-operation which we have had on the Bill from people outside and inside the House.
There is, however, one person who has been missed out in all these congratulations, and that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends—and I am sure that I carry hon. Members opposite with me in this—when I say that the Bill would not have got thus far if it had not been for his perseverence. In spite of all the other activities which he pursues inside and outside Parliament, I hope that he will be able to spare time in future years—and I hope that we shall have him with us for many years—in pursuing the objects of the Bill and other related matters, because only if people like him give their time, thought and energy to these matters will Parliament get on with the job. We all admire him for his persistence and congratulate him on having got the Bill this far. I am sure that their civilised Lordships in another place will look on it with nothing but favour.

2.22 p.m.

Mr. Cordle: I associate myself with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said about the great assistance which we have received from all quarters on the Bill—the Government, draftsmen, Civic Trust, and so on. I should like particularly to mention Mr. Peter Robshaw for his great personal assistance on the part of the Bill which was the subject of a Bill which I introduced. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to introduce the part of the Bill which stems from the small Bill I introduced on 18th February dealing with the disposal of abandoned motor cars.

2.23 p.m.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I join in the congratulations to the sponsors which are now in order. I mention particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). Various people have been concerned with this matter for some time, but to my certain knowledge he has been concerned with it for more than 12 years. I am sure that it was with this in view that 12 years ago, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, he encouraged and was

active in the formation of the Civic Trust. If the Government timetable had permitted, there might well have been a Government Bill on these lines. However, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is a legislation factory, and this Bill did not find a place in the pipeline.
My right hon. Friend's interest has been continuous. I think that the size of the Bill and its complication is almost unique for a Private Member's Bill. It owes a very great deal to my right hon. Friend's experience as Minister of Housing and Local Government and his ability to get the best out of his collaborators on both sides of the House—those behind the Ministerial desks, permanent civil servants and officials of the Civic Trust. He has produced a Measure which we all hope will be effective and which, judging from the debate today, gives every promise of being effective.
The Bill is a justification for some thing about which many of us were doubtful. When my right hon. Friend was lucky enough to draw first place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills, some people felt that, since he had had a great deal of experience of legislation, he might have ceded it to someone who was less experienced. But he took advantage of it, and he was wise to do so. The country will benefit from that to the utmost. In congratulating the sponsors of the Bill, and the Government for their receptive attitude to it, I pay special tribute to my right hon. Friend and congratulate him on having seen the labours of at least 12 years properly requited.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I have learnt that those who wish to support a Bill must at this stage confine their remarks to the minimum, otherwise they defeat their own purpose.
I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and to say how inspiring it has been to see the Bill pass through its various legislative stages with such good will and co-operation on both sides of the House. It was ironic this morning that it should be the Minister of State at the Scottish Office who, in his new Clause, should propose applying the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962, to Scotland. I had the honour to introduce that Measure. When I tried


to get through the Money Resolution, it was the present Secretary of State for Scotland who tried to obstruct me. I am, therefore, glad that the Minister of State has been more progressive than his right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, ably assisted by his fellow sponsors, has produced a really worthwhile Bill. The Civic Trust has been of immense help to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has given them useful advice, has helped with drafting and has produced many ideas. It is greatly to the Government's credit that they have been willing to help so constructively throughout the Bill's stages.
We have managed to deal with about 75 Amendments in only three and a half hours. Speedy progress has been made on the Bill at all stages. Certainly we on this side of the House feel that we have had a very good 24 hours, and perhaps this is the best bit of it. I join other Members in saying that the Bill will make a great improvement in our standards and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham deserves the congratulation of people inside and outside the House for all the work which he has done, not only on the Bill, but for so many years.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has received support from both sides of the House. Consequently, it has had a very speedy and smooth passage, Therefore, all that I wish to do is to express my gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their co-operation and assistance. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his advice and guidance and to the draftsmen and others who have assisted.
During the 16 or 17 years that I have been a Member of the House, I have participated in the ballot for Private Members' Bills on a number of occasions, but this was the first occasion on which I was successful. It has been an exhilarating and unique experience, and I am very glad that the Bill has almost received its Third Reading. I hope that it will attract equal support in another place and will have an equally smooth passage.
It is more than trite to say that accidents do not happen, but are caused. The Bill attempts to deal with some of the causes and, therefore, it is a contribution to road safety.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I would like to support the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) and to congratulate him upon getting his Bill through the House. We all know how difficult it is to get a Private Member's Bill through, particularly if there is any controversy, and there could have been controversy over this Bill. I was sorry that I did not have the opportunity of speaking on the Second Reading, as I intended to, but I was stricken down with a cold and I could not be here.
I am glad to have the opportunity now to say something about it. It has been a weakness of our law that we have not been able to bring in much earlier tests for commercial vehicles, in the same way as has recently been done for motor cars.


Commercial vehicle drivers and operators have been on a looser rein than the motorists. This has been bad for the industry and the operators, because there has been a large number of badly maintained vehicles, belching forth smoke, with brakes improperly adjusted, and so on.
The Ministry relied on roadside checks to put this right, but they were not sufficiently binding, because the vehicle could be stopped, but the operator could continue to run the vehicle. The Bill is an attempt to put that right, in that a certificate has to be given to the operator, specifying what the defects are, and the operator has to put them right within 30 days. During that time the Ministry inspector can come along to see if the defects have been remedied.
We all know that the great majority of operators are responsible, but there are a certain number of irresponsible operators, punching their vehicles through at considerable speed, and not giving necessary time to maintenance. These men can be caught by the Bill. One of the difficulties is that the small operator does not have a maintenance depot, like the larger operators, with a properly qualified road transport engineer. He has to rely on the local garage, and he may not take his vehicle there. Thus it can go for a long time without servicing.
I was talking to a taxi driver the other day who had a little car in which I was interested. He said that he only took it for servicing once a year. That seemed to be a risky operation for a taxi driver. If that is the way some people treat vehicles, it is no wonder that some of them are defective.
I congratulate the hon. Member in bringing forward this Bill. insuring that specific defects are remedied and that the Ministry inspector can find out whether the work has been carried out. I feel sure that this will be a helpful step forward towards greater road safety and will give support to the responsible operator who looks after his vehicle properly, while curtailing the activities of the minority of irresponsible and unsafe operators, who are still with us.

2.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): May I also congratulate my

hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) on reaching the Third Reading with his Bill, and on his successful piloting of the Measure through the House. He has made a valuable contribution to road safety by producing this Measure, and it will be a useful weapon in the armoury used to counteract the evils of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) spoke.
This is a modest advance in the drive to get safer vehicles on the road by trying to ensure, because of the bad behaviour of a small minority in respect of their defective vehicles, that they are compelled to have these defects repaired.
All the time we need to intensify this drive to raise the standard of the safety of vehicles on the roads. Secondly, my hon. Friend has made a contribution towards stopping the sale of defective second-hand vehicles. That is important in itself. Thirdly, he has provided a sensible way of subjecting imported vehicles to our testing regulations, according to their real age and not according to the age from the date upon which the vehicle came to these shores.
Fourthly, he has provided for urban district councils to be able to carry out testing operations, in addition to the other types of local authorities which can now do so. All those provisions were in the Bill as presented by my hon. Friend on Second Reading. I should perhaps say a few words about two further Clauses which now appear in the Bill, and which I moved on behalf of the Government in Committee.
I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for his co-operation and willingness to extend the scope of his Measure in order to carry through these Amendments. I refer first to the Clause clarifying the position about certain offences. As the law stands, in spite of what Parliament tried to do in 1962 in the then Road Traffic Act, it is still not clear, and causes the police difficulty, whether prosecutions for certain offences against the Construction and Use Regulations ought to be brought under Section 64 or under Section 239 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act. This has caused difficulty in the courts because there are different maximum penalties.
On the one hand, some are subject to a maximum penalty of £20, and, on the


other, there is a maximum fine of £50. Parliament endeavoured to put this matter right in 1962, but, unfortunately, it has been found that the Amendment then made still lends itself to interpretations which leave it in doubt how offences against the Construction and Use Regulations, which relate to the use of the vehicle but not specifically to its condition, ought to be dealt with.
We have, therefore, put into this Bill a Clause making it quite clear how these prosecutions should take place, in that they should all be subject to the maximum penalty of £50. The sort of things which we have under consideration are the use of the vehicle for an unsuitable purpose, causing danger, leaving a motor vehicle unattended while unbraked or with the engine running, opening the door of a vehicle so as to cause injury and danger, and other offences of this kind.
The second and perhaps more important Clause that we have inserted into the Bill, is that regarding vicarious liability. Hon. Members concerned with the Committee stage of the Road Safety Bill, now in another place, will remember the considerable discussion that we had then about the doctrine of vicarious responsibility, and, in particular, under the so-called "totting up" provisions, the liability of a small haulier, the owner of vehicle, to be disqualified from driving on the third reckonable offence, because the driver of his vehicle had been hauled before the courts and convicted of certain offences. I want to make quite clear what it is that we have done by the insertion of this Amendment of the law into my hon. Friend's Bill.
First, I emphasise that the Clause does not alter the position in respect of liability to conviction for the offence which is the subject of proceedings, nor does it affect the ordinary penalty which the courts may impose. It would seem to be necessary, or certainly advisable, for

some senior representative of a company brought before the courts in relation to such an offence to attend the court. The purpose is to correct the position that when an owner of a vehicle with a vicarious liability is a limited company, individual members of the board are not liable to the additional penalty of licence endorsement or disqualification, whereas, in the same position, the owners or partners in a private business have the vicarious liability which attaches to the owner of a business for the acts of an employee, such as a maintenance engineer.
What we have done is something that does not in any way remove the possibility of conviction for the offence and the imposition of the offence, but it ceases to make it mandatory on the court to disqualify from driving the owner of a vehicle when considering the third reckonable offence if the owner can successfully produce the defence that he had no knowledge or constructive knowledge of the defect. I think that meets the charge of inequity that was made in the discussions on the Road Safety Bill, and I hope that it will meet with the general approval of the House.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling us, by the production of his Bill at this stage, to make this amendment to the law which was demanded on all sides of the House. I commend the Bill to the House, and congratulate my hon. Friend on his good work.

Sir Clive Bossom: The Opposition welcome the Bill. We feel that it is a good one. As has been said, it helps road safety. We are most grateful to the Government for accepting new Clause No. 7. I am sure that the Minister will agree that if that had not been added a considerable amount of hardship would have been caused. I trust that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third tune and passed.

ANTARCTIC TREATY BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

2.44 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill was supported on all sides on Second Reading and also in Committee. The real need to preserve wild life and the natural environments has been very much brought to our minds recently. In this Bill we have a chance to ensure that wild life will continue to exist anyhow in the Antarctic.
The freak accident to the "Torrey Canyon" may have killed up to 10,000 birds just at the beginning of breeding time. The R.S.P.C.A. is working round the clock to save Cornwall's wild life. Birds such as puffins, razor-bills, shags and cormorants and rare birds like divers and skuas have been killed or in many cases severely injured. Not only birds have suffered but also seals and shell fish and sea flora. The carnage has been terrible due to that one disaster. It is not only on our coasts; we now have reports that it is happening on the French coast.
The Bill is intendea to enable us to do what we can in concert with the other nations concerned to preserve the natural environment and the wild life in the Antarctic. This is a vital and worthwhile object, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

2.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): I have the very pleasant duty to say on behalf of the Government how much we welcome this small but important Bill and appreciate the very great care and skill with which the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) has piloted it through all its stages.
The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to carry out fully its obligations under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora which were adopted by the Third Consultative Meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Powers in Brussels in 1964. These Measures are set out in Schedule 2 of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is a very limited one, but there has been a large measure of international agreement, and I think that it is a very satisfactory circumstance that we are able to meet here today and, I hope, give the Bill a final blessing before sending it on its way to another place.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Opposition welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) on his patience and the thoroughness with which he has piloted the Bill. We are also grateful to the Government for the fair wind that they have given to the Bill.
The Bill is admirable, particularly because it achieves two important things. First, it demonstrates how nations can work together on an international basis, for this Bill is the product of the Antarctic Treaty which brought together the Soviet Union, the United States and other nations which at the time it was signed were involved in many parts of the world in the danger of armed collision. Yet here was an example where nations freely agreed to neutralise the Antarctic, and to take a number of other steps, one of which is the preservation of the Antarctic for scientific purposes.
The second major reason for welcoming the Bill is that it will go a long way to protect the essential character and quality of the fauna and flora, and perhaps the beauty too, of the Antarctic continent. Many species of wild life in the world today are in danger of extinction. As my hon. Friend said, the "Torrey Canyon" disaster has focused our attention on the matter in Europe. But elsewhere there are instances where rare species are in danger from the impact of what we call civilisation. Here at least in the Antarctic there is a fair hope that they will be preserved and maintained.
In welcoming the Bill, I should like to put to the Minister two or three points. When other nations agree to the Treaty, I hope that the British Government will stress these points with vigour. First, we hope that an effort will be made to get as many other nations as possible to accede to the Treaty as quickly as possible. I understand that, besides those which originally signed the Treaty, one


or two other countries have agreed to accept its provisions, but we hope that Her Majesty's Government will press on other nations the need to lay upon themselves the same obligations as we are accepting under the Treaty.
Also, as was pressed on the Minister in Committee, we hope that the British Government will request other nations to enforce comparability of punishment on their nations if they transgress the obligations which now are to be applied to British nationals, and also to seek a comparability of procedure for the issue of permits allowing exploration of the Antarctic.
Certainly, it would be a sad day if, in attempting to preserve the flora and fauna of Antarctica, we laid upon British citizens more onerous obligations than those laid by other nations upon their nationals. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State, as he undertook to do in Committee, will press this point.
I end by again congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. How he manages to run so many international gatherings in the House of Commons and still worry about the penguins and seals of Antarctica is hard to understand. I congratulate him very much.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom), but we cannot allow this opportunity to go by without taking note that here we are extending penalties and protections to Antarctica which we sadly lack in the United Kingdom. There is a great demand in Britain for the proper protection of flora and fauna in this country, particularly in places of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy movement and the County Naturalist Trust support this Bill and have taken an interest in its passage, but they regret most sincerely that there is not the same protection in Britain as there is to be in Antarctica for flora and fauna.
When we considered Clause 3 in the Standing Committee, we discussed the very important point about the person in charge of an expedition who is to be given permits to issue licences for the gathering, collection and disturbance of

rare flora and fauna in Antarctica. It is hard to get people to go on Antarctic expeditions. By the time one has found the medical officer and other usual members of such an expedition, how is one to be certain that it includes someone with sufficient knowledge of flora and fauna to be able to issue the necessary permits and keep the proper record of the activities that have been carried out?
In this Bill, we are dealing, for example, with some of the rarest lichens in the world. We know that they are exposed for short periods only in one special part of Antarctica. I am worried that the necessary scientific knowledge may not be available to the people in charge of an expedition who will have the duty of issuing permits and of keeping a proper record of collecting activities.
This is one of the most interesting Bills of the Session. The Standing Committee proceedings were very interesting. But I cannot go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who thinks that Antarctica might well come within the range of the tourist trade. I do not yet see great expeditions to Antarctica organised by American Express or Thomas Cook and made up of ambitious American tourists. But this farsighted Bill and the even more far-sighted treaty would cover even that kind of expedition. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill with the caveat that it is sad that we do not have such an adequate and forward system of protection for our own flora and fauna in the United Kingdom.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I want to make a brief comment before the Bill takes its proper and satisfactory course and, in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom), say that his efforts have aroused great and widespread interest—including, for example, that of the Herefordshire Ornithological Society which does so well—while recognising that the bird preservation side of the Bill is only part of it. It is only right that our country should be taking an international lead in a matter of this sort.
There are many instances where countries have got together in order to preserve wild life. For example, there is


the Canadian-American combination. A firm called "Ducks Unlimited" exists. The wild fowl of North America breed in Canada and then follow their various four or five "flyways" to the United States and it is only by a combination of these two countries in international co-operation that certain breeds have been kept going.
On a visit to the United States this year—I had not been there for over 20 years—I was pleased to see that the snow goose and the blue goose were now existing in great numbers. This would not have been possible without international co-operation of the type echoed so well in the Bill.
There is one point on which I cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). He could not visualise what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) had suggested—tourist trade to Antarctica. He mentioned the United States.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: They are already going.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Those who know the people of the United States and have had the opportunity of studying them should not be surprised at anything they decide to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds says that people from the United States are already going to Antarctica as tourists. This attitude of mind in going to what we as children would have considered rather a curious place to spend a holiday in, comes from the point of view of the American people. First, America is a dynamic society which is always questing and always trying to find the answers to every problem put before it—and no place, however cold or wet or hot or high or deep is beyond the quest of man's ingenuity.
In the same way as people will increasingly wish to go to Antarctica, they will increasingly take an interest in oceanography, a science in which already we in this country are taking a growing interest and which, indeed, in the New World has been an object of study for rather longer. Great faculties of universities are taking more and more interest in all this.
Secondly, more and more young people of the United States and of our own country, in a world where the population

is growing at a frightening rate, are saying, "Where is there a place to which we can get away to be quiet and undisturbed?"
I had not intended to speak so long as this. For the reasons that I have given it is evident that we should take a greater interest in the Antarctic and other similar places. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on bringing forward the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third tune and passed.

PRIVATE PLACES OF ENTERTAIN MENT (LICENSING) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I see that the promoter of the Bill is not here. The Third Reading can be moved by a Member acting on his behalf.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): In the absence of the promoter of the Bill I want to say that the Government warmly welcome it, as the Government spokesman made clear in another place. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) for having introduced the Bill. It is an extremely valuable Measure, dealing with a subject which is regarded by many as extremely disturbing. These sleazy private clubs will now be covered by legislation.
This legislation has already been thoroughly tested and tried, because the Bill takes bits and pieces from other established Acts and makes them applicable to the kind of situation with which we are dealing. Under the circumstances, I hope that the House will welcome the Bill.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I should like to follow the Under-Secretary of State in giving the Bill a blessing and wishing it a speedy passage to the Statute Book. I am surprised that, as a


Lincolnshire Member the Minister did not mention the excellent memorandum prepared in support of the Bill by the Lincolnshire Federation of Women's Institutes and the special blessing and the amount of enthusiasm that there has been for the Bill in a county which one would not have thought was afflicted by this problem. In some of our smaller market towns, however, these small coffee bars and similar places of entertainment often spring up. This problem exists in areas which are quite a distance from the big cities.
This is a remarkable example of the way in which a Private Member's Bill, emanating from another place, can go speedily on to the Statute Book. On behalf of my constituents I wish it well, and I congratulate the Government on giving it such an easy passage through the House.

3.4 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I should like to say a few words arising from the Under-Secretary's remark that the Bill is a combination of a number of other Measures. I believe that I was the mover of the first Private Member's Bill which led to this one. When I was Chairman of the Private Bill Committee of the Manchester Corporation, I was struck by the horrible nature of what went on in the clubs that were opening up for teen-agers in Manchester. These clubs were insanitary, with no safety or fire precautions, and under no control. Drugs were said to pass in them.
Manchester Corporation took powers to control these clubs. As a result, I and other hon. Members who were on the Committee, in July, 1965, promoted a Bill called the Entertainment Clubs Bill, which, because of the General Election and other things, did not reach the Statute Book. Then the Lord Chief Justice promoted a similar Bill and I take it that this is the result. I am pleased to see that it is nearing its final stages.
On the evidence supplied by the Manchester Corporation, that as a result of the passing of its Bill the clubs have been brought under control, cleaned up and made decent, safe and fireproof, with greatly improved lavatories, I hope that this Bill will have a similar effect for other corporations which adopt it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendments.

MUNICIPAL DOCKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a great privilege for me, because it is not often that a Bill which is somewhat contentious, introduced under the Ten Minute Rule procedure, is debated in the House. I am happy to be able to deploy the case for the Bill at leisure, and that the Parliamentary Secretary is here to reply. I am grateful to have the support of my Front Bench, who have, of course, committed themselves to the construction of the great dock undertaking at Portbury near Bristol, with which the Bill is principally concerned. During the earlier proceedings, I began to feel that the great interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) in scraping rocks in Antarctica and other such matters, would prevent my getting in my speech on Second Reading, but I am delighted that there is now time.
The Bill seeks to benefit all those who have the ownership of a municipal dock undertaking. It is a happy coincidence that the port of Bristol is the major and most successful municipal dock undertaking in the United Kingdom. It is also a happy coincidence that, at this very moment, the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport is inspecting the site for the proposed Portbury dock undertaking and that she has been in my city during the last two days acquainting herself with the merits of the scheme.
Some of the Clauses in the Bill lay restrictions on the Minister of Transport, and also, as a contrast, ensure that the citizens of Bristol can take every possible step to inform the Minister—this right hon. Lady or her successor—of the virtues of our municipal dock undertaking and its future aspirations.
The Bill is brought in not only by me but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), in whose constituency the site for the scheme is


situated, and who has taken an abiding interest in it ever since he entered the House. He asked me to say that he would be here supporting me, were it not for the fact that he is dealing with a vital transport matter in his constituency. I have the support of my party as a whole, of course, in furthering the interests of the Bristol scheme.
I would remind the House that I got the leave of the House to introduce the Bill originally, with no opposition. Although there was much grumbling and growling from the other side of the House, no one had the guts to put in Tellers to divide against my getting leave. I suppose that they did not imagine, first, that I would produce a Bill, or, second, that I would ever get the chance to speak about it in the House. Yet I am doing so today.
It is not in any selfish spirit that I introduce a Bill which helps my own city so much. I am concerned that citizens and ratepayers in any municipality should be allowed to continue to enjoy the benefit of their municipal dock undertaking, just as they should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of any other undertaking, and that their assets, built up over many years, should not be taken away from them by an Act of nationalisation.
The Preamble states that the Bill is
a Bill to prevent the nationalisation of municipal dock undertakings".
I put it to the House that municipal dock undertakings, unlike some of the dock undertakings already nationalised, are, on the whole, excellently run and have the benefit of the direct interest of the ratepayers, who have plenty to say to their port authority if the docks are not being run properly. As the livelihood of so many of the citizens, particularly of Bristol, depends upon the flourishing Port of Bristol, the ratepayers are not slow to point out to their dock undertaking any deficiency which may occur.
That is not so in the case of a nationalised undertaking. We all have the difficulty in the House of trying to make the nationalised undertakings more efficient, and we find that we cannot ask Questions in the House about them. There are, however, infinite ways of putting pressure on anyone running a municipal dock undertaking if that undertaking

is not being run for the full benefit of the citizens.
The Bill as printed is somewhat unusual—

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Will my hon. Friend make one thing clear? In the preamble to his speech on Second Reading, he referred to Port-bury. As one who does not understand exactly the position, am I right in thinking that the present docks at Bristol are municipalised and that the suggested new docks at Portbury will be outside the Bristol authority? Is my hon. Friend saying that the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is more like a speech than an intervention.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The point which I want to put to my hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, is this. Is he telling the House that the projected Portbury dock will be municipalised? If so, will it be under the control of the Bristol authority?

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he has not done justice to his case in his intervention, I hope that he will be able to elaborate it at length after I have finished. As I understand the gist of his question, it is whether, after the expansion which is envisaged, not so much under the Bill but under the recommendations of the National Ports Council, and which will take place if, as we hope. the Bill reaches the Statute Book, the Port of Bristol, under the Port of Bristol Authority, would be expanded to contain the enlarged port at Portbury, on a site of 1,000 acres with 1,000 acres of land in reserve, and that it would be run by the Port of Bristol Authority on behalf of the citizens of Bristol, but on behalf of the United Kingdom. That is the case which I propose to make. This is no mere parish pump affair. If I have not satisfied my hon. Friend, I hope that he will have another go at a later stage.
The Bill is, perhaps, unusual in its presentation inasmuch as it has an unusually long Preamble before one comes to the standard words that it should be
enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty …
I thought it right to include this, with the concurrence of the authorities of the


House, just to make it perfectly clear what the whole thing was about. It states:
Whereas certain municipalities are the owners of various dock and harbour undertakings and these municipalities have produced plans for the expansion and improvement of their docks and harbours
"Certain municipalities" include the City and County of Bristol, but could easily include others; there is no selfishness in this. It goes on:
And whereas the Citizens of the City and County of Bristol enjoy certain rights and privileges granted them in a Charter by his late Majesty King Edward III
I do not propose on this occasion—indeed, it would be an abuse of the courtesies of the House to do so—read out the Charter of Edward III, but I put this in the Bill to make sure beyond reasonable doubt that Bristol merited its inclusion in the Bill and would be the principal benefactor, when the Measure becomes law. It continues:
And whereas the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City and County of Bristol have for more than a century conducted a municipal dock undertaking with skill and foresight
Hon. Members may think that these are unusual words to include in an Act of Parliament in the present day, but such words have been used in the past in many important enactments.
On this subject of skill and foresight, I call in aid the Report of the National Ports Council for the year ended December, 1965, but not printed by order of the House until April, 1966. It referred in that Report to the important schemes mentioned in the Council's Annual Report for 1964. It reiterated that the Port of Bristol scheme had come to the attention of the National Ports Council in 1964 but that it had felt that it was such an important scheme that it merited further mention. Strictly speaking, the Report stated, the Port of Bristol needed no express approval by the Minister of Transport for constructing the Portbury Scheme when the matter was submitted to the Council in 1964. Here is where skill and foresight came in. Being a scheme of great magnitude, it needed the most careful scrutiny.
The National Ports Council indeed scrutinised it. It tendered the advice to the Minister that the scheme should be proceeded with. I could give chapter

and verse as to why it came to that conclusion, and I may call some of that in aid when mentioning certain Clauses of the Bill.
The Port of Bristol Authority showed skill and foresight in producing the scheme, way ahead of any other schemes produced since and which the Government have sought to use as an excuse for not authorising the Bristol scheme. It was not just the technical reasons dreamed up or grasped by the Government from various other port researches that gave the Government an excuse to give in, as it were, to the political pressures against Portbury.
I feel for the Minister in this. I have sympathy for the South Wales ports which have great territorial, geographical or oceanographical difficulties of siting and position. I have sympathy for these places and even for the Government in finding themselves in a difficult political situation, having enormous pressures placed on them from the constituencies where these other ports are situated, particularly those represented by their own supporters. The City of Bristol, at any rate until the last election, was not entirely overwhelmed by Socialism.
I also have considerable sympathy with my Parliamentary colleagues in Bristol, who have found it very difficult here to strive in the interests of Bristol. I hope that they think, too, of the national interest while at the same time not embarrassing their own Government. I hope that we shall have even more forthright support from some of them. Some have done their very best, and others have kept very silent—

Mr. James Griffiths: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is proceeding to speak of Portbury, in which we in South Wales have an interest?

Mr. Cooke: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: Does he suggest that this proposed municipal ports authority—on which I am grateful to see Wales would be represented—should have the responsibility of deciding on and carrying out a major project like Portbury? If so, under what authority in this Bill would it operate?

Mr. Cooke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because as it comes at the end of the


Bill it might have been impossible for me in the limited time available to deal adequately with it. I hope that he realises that the rôle of the municipal docks authority referred to in the Schedule to the Bill would be to look after the interests of the municipal dock undertakings, and it would have a good deal to do with the construction of such a municipal enterprise as Portbury.
But it would not be right, as I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to suggest that South Wales was deliberately cut out or in any way disadvantaged by the municipal ports authority. Provision is made for one representative from each municipal dock undertaking in England and Wales to be a member of the authority. That means that Bristol would have only one representative so that, in fact, I am giving quite a good advantage—

Mr. James Griffiths: I appreciate that, but if, as he seems to be, the hon. Gentleman is proposing to set up a municipal ports authority, does he suggest that that authority would decide whether or not to proceed with Portbury and, if it decided to proceed with it, would operate it? That does not seem clear from the Bill.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for again intervening, because we want to get this right, but perhaps I can explain it when I go through the Bill in detail. I will, however, deal now with the Schedule.
The municipal ports authority would have a representative from each municipal dock undertaking, so that any municipal dock undertaking on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the Severn would be represented. That is the first point. The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether it was right in principle that the municipal ports authority should be empowered to proceed with a municipal enterprise such as Portbury without reference, I imagine, to the Government. Here, the Government are safely represented. There is only one representative from each municipal dock undertaking, and there is one representative appointed by the Minister of Transport, which would mean that the Minister's view would be pretty adequately expressed. The Minister could, presumably, appoint the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is

present. It is not an office of profit or anything like that. I do not envisage these members being paid for the job, but I do not see why the Minister should not be adequately represented.
But the six members of the National Ports Council would be the people in a position to find out whether a port improvement or new construction was in the national interest. They would have the majority say. They would be the block vote, at is were—and, presumably, the Government's block vote—because, as I propose to argue in a moment, the National Ports Council knows what is best in port development, and I hope that the Government would concur with it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I am still not clear what the hon. Member's answer is to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). My right hon. Friend asked, because the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was talking so much about the Portbury scheme: is it his intention that the Municipal Ports Authority, proposed in Clause 4 of the Bill, should have power to approve schemes?
The Bill does not say that. It says that a Municipal Ports Authority shall be set up to protect their interests, but it does not say what its powers are to be, or that it should have power to approve schemes, for example, with a capital value of half a million pounds. Is it the intention that the authority should have the power to approve large capital schemes?

Mr. Cooke: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may have missed the point. I admit that I may not have explained it as fully as I should.
In Clause I, the National Ports Council is specifically mentioned. If the Council has approved a scheme, under my Bill it can go ahead. The business of the municipal ports authority perhaps should not be introduced at this stage. That comes into Clause 4, which says:
In order to prevent the nationalisation of municipal docks there shall be set up a Municipal Ports Authority to protect their interests, with membership as set out in the Schedule to this Act.
The Authority would contain a representative of each interested party, the


municipal docks, the Minister and the National Ports Council, which I think the House will allow me to describe as an impartial body with all the information in its hands and, therefore, able to influence the right direction of municipal docks in general.
If I have not gone so far as I should in explaining what the powers of any of these organisations should be, that surely would be a Committee point. I look forward to having the help of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on that. He might perhaps think of a suitable Amendment for Committee defining the powers of the municipal ports authority. He might want specifically to write in certain benefits for his side of the channel. In introducing the Bill, I did not seek to treat the other side of the channel unfairly. The Bill is designed to see fair play for all municipal docks. It so happens that Bristol has the largest and best and we have this scheme, which is greatly in the national interest.
Having been dragged away from the main thread of my argument, I now come back to the Bill in particular. Before leaving the Preamble, I should say that it is not merely that the House of Commons is asked to give approval to this Measure. The enactment, of course, has also to be by
the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.
I have not asked the Bishop of Bristol about this, but he is a Member of another place and is able to take part in debates there. We have the support of Lord Rochdale, who has taken the unusual course of campaigning about the Port-bury Docks scheme up and down the land. Even in Westmorland, I found that people had heard of that scheme. I hope that when the Bill has passed this House it will receive favourable and sympathetic consideration in another place.
Clause 1 says:
No Minister may, by order or other administrative act, facilitate the nationalisation of any municipal dock by frustrating any work of improvement or expansion which has been recommended by the National Ports Council.
This prohibits the Minister, by what one might describe as back door means, from

taking over a municipal docks undertaking. I can envisage the situation where, if a municipal dock is necessary and there is an improvement without which the dock cannot remain viable for long, the Minister, if so minded, might frustrate that improvement so that the dock would cease to be viable and there would then be a case for nationalisation of that type of public ownership. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) wish to intervene?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: No.

Mr. Cooke: That gives me my case on the Clause. The hon. Member, who I am sure would not object to being described as pretty far out on the Left of his party, is delighted at the prospect of municipal docks and, for that matter, anything else, I should think, becoming inefficient because of Government policy—unviable, at any rate—and then being taken over in the national interest. This is the nationalisation by stealth with which so many hon. Members opposite are much concerned. Clause 1 would protect the citizens of Bristol from just that type of nationalisation by stealth.

Mr. Richard Body: And Boston, I hope.

Mr. Cooke: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say a few words about the Port of Boston in a moment or two.
I have not listed in a Schedule to the Bill all the municipal dock undertakings, though there is a list in the Harbours Act, 1964, which perhaps might be added to the Bill in Committee. I did not put a list in the Bill for fear that I should be attacked for the sin of omission. I well recall a striking example of this in the West Country when, after the Gas Bill, it was thought by the then Labour Government that they had nationalised all the gas works.
About a year later a man was discovered digging up a road in Somerset. When asked what he was doing, he said that he was putting in a new gas main. The authorities said, "There is no gas works here. They are all nationalised". However, when they followed the pipe to its source they discovered the Chew Magna gas works, which had escaped nationalisation because of an omission from an Act of Parliament. The Port


of Boston is not to be classed with the Chew Magna gas works, but there may be docks which at the moment are not of particular economic significance, but which may, although they have lain idle for years, become useful again. The Bill aims to stop the Government from taking away the assets of citizens and using them for improper purposes. Back-door nationalisation is prevented by Clause 1.
In the struggle which goes on in the House as to whether the State shall be all-controlling, or whether private enterprise should be allowed to continue, we might at least bring it out into the open and have a straight argument on a "Yes" or "No" case and not have the thing done by back-door, devious methods. I am all for open argument.
If the Government want to take away the assets of the citizens of Bristol or, for that matter, the assets of Boston or any other place, assets which have been built up over many centuries, let them bring a Bill before the House to do so. Let them not try to do it by frustrating legitimate schemes, schemes recommended by the National Ports Council, which knows.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring, either implicitly or explicitly, to the Portbury scheme and the recommendations of the National Ports Council. I take it that he intends to deal with the 37 pages of argument and nearly 20 pages of statistical tables which the Government published entitled "Reasons for the Minister's decision not to authorise the construction of a new port at Portbury, Bristol". As nobody so far, since this document was published, has dealt with these arguments, or in any way countered them, I assume that the hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with them.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. I have got the document here. I was about to refer to it. This just shows that the hon. Gentleman and I think alike about this problem.
The Government—the hon. Gentleman has given me a point here—have produced 37 pages of argument and about 20 pages of something else. They did this after the National Ports Council had scrutinised the Portbury scheme from beginning to end and said that it should

be proceeded with. Then the Government, after interminable delay, produced pages and pages of argument and figures. It would not be appropriate for me to try to go into this in great detail this afternoon, though I hope to have an opportunity to fight it out with the hon. Gentleman at a later stage, either at a later stage of the Bill or on another occasion in the House.
I am not trying to run away from the point. Indeed, I want to deal with some of the points in the Government's objections. Perhaps I can begin by explaining something of the benefits of Portbury in view of the attempt to decry the possibilities of the scheme. I expect that at the moment the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport is going to Temple Meads station, at Bristol, to catch that splendid train back to London. She will realise that we have very fine communications between Bristol and London.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Owing to the nationalisation of the railways.

Mr. Cooke: The communications between the Portbury site and the rest of the United Kingdom are one of the biggest factors in favour of the scheme.
I know that I carry the Joint Parliamentary Secretary with me when I point out that we have a projected motorway system. I notice that nobody has objected to that remark. If anybody were to object, it would show that he was cynical about the present Government's intention of carrying out the motorway schemes.
I am glad there are no objections. We have a motorway going from London past Portbury to South Wales, and we have a motorway from Portbury up to Birmingham and the industrial Midlands. We have a motorway going from Port-bury to the South-West. This is the only port site in the whole of the United Kingdom where the great North-South route and the East-West route—the new roads—are joined. That is the first great case for Portbury.
The Government, faced with that, struggled to find some counter-argument. They managed to dig up a set of figures produced by the Port of London which seemed to indicate that the cargoes going from London and, indeed, from Liverpool


—two great exporting ports—were generated in a small and closely approximating hinterland to those great ports and that, therefore, we needed a vast industrial complex within, say, 10 miles of the dock to justify the construction of the dock.
Were Portbury to be constructed, it would still be cheaper to ship a cargo from a brand-new efficient dock at Port-bury, with every conceivable modern aid and with none of the troubles with which London and Liverpool are bedevilled. It would be cheaper to ship it from Slough, from that side of London, or even in the middle of London via the Portbury Dock than it would be through the tangled mess of the Port of London. This is the answer to that criticism which the Government call in aid to knock down the Portbury scheme.
It would take me a whole sitting of the House to go through all the rest of the pages. However, if there are any points that the Parliamentary Secretary would like me to deal with, I will certainly do so. No doubt, one of the things that he is thinking about at the moment is the containerisation scheme, the container berths which the Government are seeking to construct in other places. I think he will recall—if he does not, I hope he will look up the record—that he once answered a Parliamentary Question that I put down, to the effect that the question of containerisation was not one which had any bearing on the Government's opposition to the Portbury scheme. I think that I have paraphrased it correctly. The Government at the time did not make a point of using the containerisation argument against the Portbury Dock scheme. If they call it in aid now, they will have changed their ground. They have done everything they can to get evidence from one place or another—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that all he is succeeding in doing is talking out his own Bill and the Bill to follow? I am wondering whether that is his intention.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I am sure that his intervention was well meant, but I am not damaging his chances by speaking at some length on my Bill. I am not so inexperienced as not to realise that the

Government are likely to oppose my Measure today. Were I to sit down now, one of a number of things would happen. One of my hon. Friends might be lucky in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in my support, but it is more than likely that the Parliamentary Secretary would spring to the Box and read out his 27 pages of writing and 32 pages of figures, which would take him just past 4 o'clock.
If the Bill which the hon. Member wishes to speak about today were—

Mr. James Griffiths: Mr. James Griffiths rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that I should remind the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that Mr. Speaker has referred on many occasions to the need for Members to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Cooke: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are to debate that subject next week. I think that very strong views will be held on this side of the House about the right of hon. Members to look after their constituents' interests and to deploy the case at whatever length is necessary on some occasions, perhaps even at some length. I am not one who is given to transgressing the spirit of the rule about the length of speeches.
On the last occasion on which I addressed the House, I had spent two months studying the prison service in great detail, and, because of the vicissitudes of debate, and in order to allow other hon. Members to speak, I had to compress a 20 minute speech into 12 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be in order next week in discussing the question of the length of speeches, but that is not in order on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Cooke: I do not propose to go further into that matter. I am sure that because of the way in which hon. Members will deploy themselves next week I have not a hope of taking part in the debate, despite the friendly suggestion from the Chair today.
May I conclude my remarks in reply to the hon. Member for Putney. He would be able to discuss this Bill today only after a Division on my Measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not discussing his own Bill, which is the matter before the House.

Mr. Cooke: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was drawn away from it by the hon. Gentleman. I wished to make it clear to him that he could discuss his Bill only after a Division, and I dare say that there would not be enough Members in the House—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about procedure, but not the hon. Member's interpretation of what happens. That has nothing to do with the Bill which he is supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Cooke: That gives me the point which I wished to make. I have no intention of letting this Bill go by default. If I thought that I could get a Division on it, I should have one.
May I now deal with Clause 2? I think that I have made out a case for the Bristol scheme. I have dealt with the major objections which the Government have called in aid. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed and does not feel that I have not done justice to the case. There will be an opportunity to debate the matter at length on another occasion.
May I go briefly through the remaining parts of the Bill? I know that my speech may be somewhat disjointed—

Mr. Heffer: Boring.

Mr. Cooke: —but I have had to give way to a large number of hon. Members. Some hon. Members seem to have come here largely to frustrate me and not to be helpful.
Clause 2 of the Bill reads:
The power of the Minister to make orders shall not include the power with a view to nationalisation to amend or repeal any Local Act empowering a municipality to make improvements or additions to its docks or harbours.
This is a vital safeguard to the interests of the citizens of any municipality. They may have struggled at great expense and Parliamentary labour to get a local Act on the Statute Book. Many of us have taken part in proceedings on this Act. I remember the Rye Harbour Act, which took up many months of time and which fell at the last fence.
This Clause merely prevents the Minister, by order, repealing the provisions of local Acts. If the Government want to knock out a local Act safeguarding the citizens' rights they must come to the House and legislate. We will not have one of these mysterious Statutory Instruments, which begin late at night or are crowded out. There will be full debate at every stage.

Mr. Swingler: In case anyone is misled by what the hon. Gentleman has said, I must make it plain that my right hon. Friend has no power to amend or repeal local Acts. At the moment, all that she has the power to do is to present harbour revision orders, when they have been applied for. Her power is confined to that, when the orders are applied for by a harbour authority or persons having a substantial interest in it.

Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says there might be a case for taking this Clause out in Committee, but I thought it right to put it in, because a private Member has only a limited amount of advice available to him on the question of legislative provisions. Any private Member would be well advised to put into his Bill anything which he thought might further the case that he was trying to make, and that is why Clause 2 is there.
Clause 3—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to appear discourteous, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that other hon. Members are waiting to join in this debate.

Mr. Cooke: That is why I hope to bring my remarks to a conclusion with a brief reference to the remaining Clauses.
Clause 3 empowers a municipality to spend
… out of its rate income or income from corporate property.…
Here those who have great corporate possessions will be able to deploy—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) got up at six minutes past three o'clock and has occupied the whole of the time since then, with one or two interventions. As a result of the excessive length of his speech he is preventing any discussion taking place on an important Measure


to protect people against the increasing menace of aircraft noise. I would like to ask for your Ruling on this, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I am sufficiently aware of this, and had already given a very broad hint to the hon. Gentleman. But we cannot anticipate the hon. Gentleman's own Bill, which follows on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cooke: I do not wish to be drawn into that subject, but I made it clear in your absence, Sir, that I propose, if I get the opportunity, to divide the House in order to secure a Second Reading. I hope that that answers the hon. Member's query.
Clause 3 empowers the local authority to spend such sums as it thinks necessary
to persuade Parliament of the iniquity of any State interference in its municipal dock undertakings.
They may also spend monies
on transportation and entertainment of the Minister",
which is the wording that we have here, but that may be suitable for amendment. The point is that a local authority may spend whatever sum it thinks necessary in looking after its interests, and that may include looking after the Minister of Transport, as we have done for these last two days in the City of Bristol. It is to make it clear that the case of Mr. Cube, an anti-nationalisation campaign of that sort, would be open to a municipal port undertaking so that citizens could protect their rights.
I have already dealt with Clause 4. Clause 5 is an interpretative Clause.
Clause 6 is a money provision which I was told I had to include. But, on the question of expenses, Bristol has said that if it is allowed to go ahead with the scheme straight away, it is prepared to finance this improvement out of its own resources, so that Parliament will not be asked to vote funds for it; and any other expenses would appear to be due to administrative charges, which could be brought to the minimum if the Minister allowed the National Port Council's recommendations to go ahead.
I have not applied the Bill to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I would not dare to apply it to Scotland without proper consultation with Scottish Members. It would probably need another 10 Clauses

to get it right. Despite the virulent attacks of Government Members on Northern Ireland, I am sure that Northern Ireland is well able to look after and to legislate for itself.
The principle of the Bill—I am sorry that I have been so long because of the interruptions—should surely commend itself to the Government and the Labour Party. Hon. Members opposite are all for public ownership; it is enshrined in their basic philosophy, and it is unlikely that they will ever change their attitude. The Bill is in favour of public ownership, municipal ownership, citizens being able to keep and do what they like with their own. It seeks to protect their interests, and it is, therefore, in favour of public ownership.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said that under the present Government we should have an age of adventure and reform. It is not an age of adventure and reform if we have not the guts to proceed with this great municipal dock undertaking in Bristol. It is a strange way of reforming to delay and delay and eventually produce bogus reasons for not proceeding.
My concluding thought is that this is not just a local, parochial matter. The Bill aims to protect municipal docks. Bristol has the greatest municipal dock undertaking in the United Kingdom, and it is in the national interest that its great plan for expansion, the Portbury scheme, should continue. That is why I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which will help in this national work in the national interest.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I do not propose to detain the House for long because I know that some of my hon. Friends have views to express to which they attach very great importance. I tell the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), with every respect, that he has abused the privileges of the House by speaking on the Bill from five minutes past three until now, thereby denying to other hon. Members the fortune and privileges that he has been lucky enough to win in the Ballot.
What a surprise it was to hear a long speech from the Opposition benches and from the hon. Member in praise of public ownership! I welcomed that part of it


anyhow. The hon. Gentleman seeks to defend public ownership. I am glad to get the admission from him that he is anxious to protect the Bristol municipal docks from nationalisation. But he did not say a word about protecting them from private owners who might take them over. In the course of my time I have known municipal docks taken over by private owners.
The hon. Member referred to the national interest. That includes the interests of my constituents and all the people in South Wales. For those of us who live on the other side of the Severn, this is a matter of very great importance indeed. There is the Portbury scheme, but there are other schemes. There is the major dock scheme at Port Talbot, South Wales, related to the steel industry and to the economic development of the whole of our side of the Severn. Another one is projected at Uskmouth. Parliament at some time has given consent to both schemes going forward after full debates on Bills. The scheme at Port Talbot will cost many millions of £s. The schemes at Port Talbot and Uskmouth are essential to provide transport facilities in such a way and at such a cost as to enable those two great steel conurbations, which are of vital importance to the nation, to sustain themselves in competition with their rivals all over the world.
Wales has a great national possession—a great harbour. There is none other like it in Europe. I am glad that Milford Haven's facilities have been discovered and are being used and are to be further developed. I want to see the development of the whole of the Bristol Channel on both sides. But this can and must be done only as part of a great national plan for docks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to nationalisation by the back door. But he is using the small back door of this Bill to put forward the case for the Portbury scheme. There may be a case for that scheme, just as there is a case against it. I intervened to ask the hon. Gentleman a question which he did not answer. I asked whether he proposed that this municipal ports authority—with one representative from each municipal undertaking in England and Wales, one representative of the Ministry of Transport and six representatives of the National

Ports Council—would be authorised to decide whether a project of the size and importance of the Portbury scheme could be undertaken without further reference to Parliament.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Mr. Robert Cooke rose—

Mr. Griffiths: No. The hon. Gentleman has taken up all the time. He must now listen to me. We have listened to him, although perhaps at times rather reluctantly.
Our dock facilities are of vital importance to the country as a whole. Those facilities must be improved and expanded. It is a great national problem, and when we come to deal with it it cannot be settled by the back door in a puny Bill introduced in a long and muddled speech.
The hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill as an excuse for putting forward the case for the Portbury scheme, and to give it a Second Reading would go beyond anything that the House should do on a Friday afternoon. I want to see the full resources of both sides of the Bristol Channel developed to the full in the best interests of the nation in general and in particular, of course, of South Wales. I hope the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading but will go on to give an opportunity to hon. Members with other Bills of more importance than this one.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had hoped to speak on another matter but it is obvious that this is not now possible. I want to make instead one or two references to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke).
In a sense, that speech was rather amazing. It seemed to show a blinding light of conversion. One day the hon. Member comes here ranting and raving against public ownership. Then he comes along with a little Bill, having suddenly discovered the virtues of public ownership. It is a wonderful conversion. I hope that it extends to the whole of the Opposition and that when the Government ultimately introduce the Bill for regional public ownership of the docks the hon. Gentleman will be the first on his feet to make a speech in favour of it.
Regional public ownership will be nothing but an extension, as it were, of the type of municipal public ownership existing at Bristol. I believe in public ownership. Some years ago I moved, in Liverpool City Council, a motion calling for the municipalisation of the Liverpool Docks. At one time, Liverpool did have municipal docks, but private enterprise moved in on them. Today, we have not entirely private enterprise docks. We have a sort of half-and-half scheme.

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

AIRCRAFT NOISE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 5th May.

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, next.

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 5th May.

UNAUTHORISED TELEPHONE MONITORING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 2nd June.

SPOILHEAPS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

INTERNATIONAL EISTEDDFOD BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

DISMISSAL APPEALS BOARD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

LABELLING OF FOOD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 2nd June.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1966 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 16th June.

EXPORT ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 16th June.

NATIONAL SWEEPSTAKES BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [17th March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

HEARING AIDS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [3rd March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

LAW OF CONTEMPT (PRESS AND BROADCASTING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

DISUSED GRAVEYARDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

MID-WIRRAL ROAD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: On 11th June, 1965, Messrs. G. Maunsell and Partners were appointed consulting engineers to the Ministry of Transport and charged with
an investigation to determine the line of the proposed Mid-Wirral Road …
in Cheshire. A preliminary memorandum was submitted to the Minister in May, 1966, which detailed those proposals of immediate relevance to the completion of plans for the proposed new two-lane tunnel beneath the Mersey estuary. Three months later the full report was presented. It would be difficult to exaggerate the immense importance of this scheme to my constituency, and indeed, to the Wirral peninsula as a whole.
The consultants are recommending a road with dual three-lane carriageways from the end of the new Mersey tunnel approach road to an interchange with the New Chester Road and the Hooton Industrial Road at Hooton. It is also recommended that the road should be extended further southward, across the A5117 trunk road to a connection with the A41 trunk road near Backford. Further recommendations include a spur road to be built in a location between Moreton and Upton, with no connection of the existing roads through these places to the Mid-Wirral Road. The Brimstage


Road would be diverted to connect to the Mid-Wirral Road at an interchange just to the south of its present alignment, with the diversion including a by-pass to the village of Brimsgate.
More generally, it is urged that the Mid-Wirral Road should be classified as a motorway, and that the spur road near Moreton should be included in this classification. It is stressed that this Mid-Wirral Motorway must meet the traffic requirements of a twin-tube northern tunnel, and that the second tube of this tunnel must be completed and opened to traffic by 1973. The consultants' calculations of traffic density and capacity have been related also, but necessarily tentatively, to a possible third Mersey crossing and to a possible Dee Estuary crossing on which further information is, I understand, soon to be published.
Assuming that the whole project is completed as far as Backford in 30 months from the commencement of contract, it will cost £11,200,000. Since the first two-lane tube between Wallasey and Liverpool will be open to traffic by 1970, the completion of this ambitious motorway spine down Wirral is going to be a race against Time's Winged Chariot, and Ministerial decisions are presumably imminent.
But if the heat is on in that sense, so, too, is much heat being generated in my constituency over the line of the new road. Here I come to my main purpose in raising this matter on the Adjournment. I am referring to the dispute over the easterly and westerly alternatives examined by the consultants for that section of the Mid-Wirral Road which crosses the Borough of Bebington. The Minister will, of course, be familiar with the alternatives, and the correspondence which I have recently forwarded to his Department will indicate the widespread concern and anxiety felt locally over this choice and its far-ranging implications.
Put briefly, the alternative alignments diverge immediately south of the Birkenhead County Borough boundary, the one running east of Storeton village along the flanks of Storeton Hill, and passing within 150 yards of Clatterbridge Hospital. The western route, by contrast, is 400 yards from the hospital at its nearest point. It appears that the consultants, for reasons unspecified at first favoured the eastern route.
However, in their report of last August, they stated that so many disadvantages were found when the eastern route was being detailed that
eventualy it was abandoned in favour of the western alignment.
They went on to specify in great detail, in eight paragraphs, the reasons which had led to this firm preference for the western route. The implications for the hospital loomed large, in terms of noise, access and visual obtrusion. The disadvantages of the easterly route in terms of a connection to a future third Mersey crossing near Bromborough were touched upon.
The eastern route as then envisaged would have been 700 ft. longer and would have affected 10 side roads compared to seven on the western alignment. It entailed the acquisition of 143 acres and would have severed 89 acres of farmland from the main holdings. The western route would require acquisition of 116 acres and would sever 22 acres. The consultants felt that encroachment of development was neither necessary nor inevitable to the line of the Western route, but—and this is crucial to the argument over the effects upon the Wirral Green Belt—they stated
If the motorway had followed the eastern route, cutting through the farms on the eastern fringe of the agricultural area, expansion of development to the line of the motorway would have been much more probable.
Their final paragraph concerned cost and it was estimated that the eastern route would cost some £450,000 more than the other. It was also claimed:
the future costs of east-west links to the Rivers Dee and Mersey may be substantially curtailed, probably by a further £250,000, if the western route is adopted.
It is not my intention to support or criticise these arguments, which I trust I have fairly summarised. I am simply indicating that the consultants, the experts appointed to make recommendations, were in no doubt whatsoever last August that the western route had a decisive balance of advantage.
In January, 1967, Bebington, as one of the local authorities affected by the Mid-Wirral Road—none is more crucially affected—was able to consider the report of its borough engineer and surveyor, Mr. T. H. McGrath. He expressed a personal view endorsing the consultants' preference for the western route, and in


addition to listing their reasons he gave additional reasons of his own.
He dwelt upon the green belt argument which I sketched a moment ago.
With the westerly line,
he said,
both sides of open country are viable as agricultural land, but the areas left between the easterly line and the limits of development in Bebington are very restricted in parts and being non-viable agriculturally would really be subject to pressure.
He went on to argue that the easterly line would seriously affect those areas of the green belt, such as the slopes of Storeton Hill and Raby Mere, must used by Bebington residents for recreation. For these and other reasons, he urged the council to support the westerly alignment.
He did, however, indicate that contrary views were circulating, and, as I know from my own soundings in the constituency, a large body of farmers is opposed strongly to the westerly route, as is the Wirral Green Belt Council, which has confirmed its opposition in a letter I received yesterday, and, indeed, the Wirral Society, in a letter which I received only a few moments ago. The borough surveyor added however:
It is difficult to comment on the eastern line in detail, because there is no section of the road on this line included in the Report. Consequently its impact on the neighbourhood cannot be adequately assessed.
Having seen the full report, in my capacity as deputy-chairman of the Birkenhead Planning Committee, I can confirm this lacuna, and I interpret it to mean that the consultants had by then ceased to give serious consideration to the possibility of the easterly route. Indeed, the lengthy exposition by the consultants of their reasons for choosing the westerly route, seems to have been included only to meet the objections which, they said, had been made—"so far informally"—by the Ministry of Agriculture against the western route.
So far, however, everything had been above board. The consultants' final report was in the hands of the Minister, and the technical officers of the various planning authorities were also considering its implications, Early this year, however, all sorts of peculiar rumours began to circulate, not least in the Merseyside Press, that the Minister had decided to support the easterly route.
Of course, I do not suggest for one moment that the Minister—and I stress the Minister, not the Ministry—has not the right to exercise final responsibility. I would, however, expect that the Minister would announce her decision personally, and, particularly where that decision conflicted with the weight of published expert opinion, give details of the fresh evidence which tipped the scales the other way.
On the first of those two points, it was a little disconcerting for the Bebington Council to be informed, in a letter dated 14th February, from the Cheshire County Surveyor to Mr. MacGrath, that in the light of a further study of the costs of the two lines, the Ministry had come to prefer the easterly route.
At that stage the views of Bebington had not been obtained and the town clerk, Mr. Gerald Chappell, was thereupon instructed to find out from the divisional road engineer whether his council would be given the opportunity of making representations generally, and whether it would be given
the fullest possible information to allow it to do so.
At that stage, in the middle of February, the details of the additional information which was supposed to have tipped the scales were so scanty as to be frankly derisory. The letter of 14th February stated baldly that the consultants were "now" indicating a difference of £200,000 only between the eastern and western routes, the former being still more expensive. This reduction was based on a shortening of the easterly route by 500 feet.
Against this,
went on the letter,
the cost benefit was in the region of £100,000 per year.
It was natural that Bebington's curiosity should be aroused by this tantalisingly brief reference to the sophisticated concept of cost-benefit. Did it mean that elaborate calculations had been made, in collaboration with the vast Merseyside transportation and land-use study, about the cost-benefit implications of future Dee and Mersey crossings? No, as I was myself to discover in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 20th March. The study, it was said, was at too early a stage for an analysis of that kind. I am tempted to digress and suggest that the


study, expensive and elaborate as it is, will only appear long after the crucial decisions have been taken, piecemeal, on transport in the conurbation.
But to return to Mid-Wirral, the cost benefit mystery had been solved when Mr. MacGrath explained, in a supplementary report considered by the Bebington Council on 7th March, that the Minister had asked the consultants to assess the excess vehicle miles produced in a particular year in respect of one line in comparison with another, and to value this difference at a cost of 13d. per vehicle mile.
As a result of certain calculations for the Brimstage interchange in 1973, a net extra cost for the westerly line was calculated at £95,000 in that year. This, however, would need to be reduced by the annual charge equivalent to the difference in capital cost between the two routes, and Mr. McGrath has calculated a reduction of about £18,000 a year on this basis.
But any such hidden saving to the community could well be distorted by many variables and I am bound to remain suspicious of this last-minute, primitive and simplified calculation which ignores the possible future Dee crossing, yet which the Ministry appears to regard as adequate to counter-balance all the evidence of the consultants hitherto.
Even accepting that this cost-benefit analysis is accurate and relevant, we are at best left with the conclusion that the overall cost advantages of the western route are only marginal. But the essential arguments, in such a finely poised cost comparison, are those detailed in the first seven paragraphs of the consultants' advocacy of the western route. For the Minister to appear to dismiss these so abruptly as was implied to Bebington Council is surely odd. Assurances about the scope for Bebington to put its views at a public inquiry following the Minister's decision is like offering a postmortem to someone denied a precautionary check-up."
I have no doubt that the Minister will indicate, as was indicated to Bebington Council in a letter from the divisional road engineer dated 22nd February, that it was never intended that the views of Bebington would be ignored. I am also

aware that on 5th April last, lengthy discussions took place between Bebington, Cheshire and the D.R.E. and the consultants, and that further talks are planned.
But I suggest that the Ministry seems to have been careless, even peremptory at one stage, in the way it has handled this matter with the people most intimately concerned in the decision.
I stress that I am not trying to advocate one route rather than the other. There are, I know, weighty arguments on both sides, and I do not envy the Minister in reaching a decision. My right hon. Friend has gone out of her way, since her recent visit to Merseyside, to acquaint herself with the views—on both sides—of my constituents, and I pay tribute to the interest she has shown throughout these weeks of controversy. I know that my constituents would be equally interested to have a clarification of the Ministry's approach to this vital and urgent problem for Wirral.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Part of this new road goes through my constituency and I am, therefore, grateful for this chance to intervene briefly to comment on it. I promise to be brief and, therefore, my remarks are bound to be rather staccato.
Strong objections have been voiced to me, particularly about the general merits of having such a road at all. It is felt that it is nonsense to have a dual three-lane 70 m.p.h. road leading to a dual one-lane 30 m.p.h. tunnel. It is felt that the existing roads should have been improved first, that the Ministry's priorities are wrong and that substantial improvement should have taken place on the Chester-Whitchurch-Newport-road to the Midlands rather than indulging in this expensive scheme first of all. It is also considered wrong to take good agricultural land for this purpose.
I will not go into the merits of these arguments. Time does not allow me to do so. It is certain, as the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) pointed out, that this road through the green belt will completely change the character of much of the peninsula. There will indeed be a very heavy price to pay in terms of amenity for the new road.
What disturbs me mainly about the project is that there will need to be at


least one more Mersey crossing—tunnel, bridge or, perhaps, both. The idea of a Dee crossing is very much under consideration and we expect to receive a report soon. It seems wrong that the Government should commit themselves to one or other version of this road, or even to the road itself, pending some decisions being taken about those crossings. It may well be, whatever course they take, that it will be proved wrong by subsequent decisions. It would be more logical to speed up the decision about the crossings, difficult and complicated though that is, before coming to a decision on this new road.

4.19 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I welcome this opportunity to make a statement about the Mid-Wirral road. The anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) have been expressed both persistently and energetically. He has been making continual representations on the subject and I hope that this afternoon I can clear up some of the outstanding points.
I do not have time to go into the general case for the Mid-Wirral road, but I will be delighted to write to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) about the general case, making available to him such traffic figures and calculations as we have. I propose this afternoon to deal only briefly with the general case and to come straight away to the controversy with which my hon. Friend is concerned.
I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has been paying great attention to the points that have been raised. The proposed Mid-Wirral Road is, in our view, an important scheme. It forms part of an overall plan for improving communications between the Merseyside conurbation and the rest of the country.
In February, my right hon. Friend announced the inclusion of the South Lancashire motorway in the trunk road preparation pool. This will connect the Merseyside conurbation with the M6, Manchester and beyond. The new Liverpool-Wallasey tunnel under the Mersey, now under construction, and the Mid-Wirral Road, which is included in the forward programme, will provide similar

access to the Wirral peninsula, West Cheshire and Wales. We aim to have the Mid-Wirral Road built, at least as far south as Hooton, by the time the new tunnel is completed, as the effectiveness of the tunnel will certainly depend on adequate connections through the northern part of the Wirral.
The line of the road from the Liverpool—Wallasey tunnel down to the southern boundary of Wallasey was fixed under the Mersey Tunnel Act, 1965, but the line of the road south of the Wallasey boundary is not yet settled, and I can well understand why this alignment is the subject of much local concern and controversy, and, as my hon. Friend has explained so clearly, in Bebington the choice between two alternative routes is a highly controversial issue. He has already described the very strong feeling aroused by the proposed eastern and western alignments.
We were aware of this problem when we asked consultants to examine the two alternative lines, and, as my hon. Friend has said, the consultants came down in favour of the western alignment. But our own examinations of this question showed that there was much to be said for the eastern alternative as well. The eastern route would be about 90 yards longer than the western route, but its extra cost could be more than justified because of savings in traffic costs and because more people would use it.
From the A41 trunk road in Bebington it is a smaller distance to the eastern alignment of the Mid-Wirral Road than to the western alignment. So people going to and from Bebington who at present use the A41 would have a greater incentive to use the eastern alignment rather than the western. Both their travelling time and overall traffic costs would be less. We want, of course, to remove traffic from A41 wherever possible. The more we can transfer to the new road, the more we ease congestion on the existing trunk road and make it safer. So, on analysis, from the traffic point of view, the eastern line appears more effective than the western one. Planning arguments have been advanced as well, and we have heard claims that the effect on agriculture favours the eastern line.
On the other side, we have received vigorous representations against the


eastern route, especially on the question, mentioned by my hon. Friend, of the Clatterbridge Hospital. It should be possible to avoid any adverse effect on the hospital, but nevertheless this is a problem.
As I said before, this new Mid-Wirral road has aroused a deal of local discussion, the results of which have been so admirably presented to the House today by my hon. Friend. Much of the local reaction has been in favour of the western alternative, but there has been support for the eastern one as well, notably from those concerned with the future of agriculture in the Wirral.
It is, of course, unusual for alternative routes to be canvassed publicly at a stage like this, so I want to summarise the statutory procedures for fixing the line on new roads. This will reassure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will take no decision until all those affected have made their views known.
The Highways Act of 1959 lays down a procedure for publication in draft form of any order which the Minister proposes to make fixing the line of a new road, or the consequential effects of a new road on the roads it would cross by way of junctions, diversions, stopping up, etc. Such draft orders are open to objection for a period of three months. Any objections which are not withdrawn before the end of the objection period are considered by my right hon. Friend before she decides whether or not to make the order, either as advertised or with modification. The Minister may, and in some cases, must, have a public inquiry before she decides whether to make the order. The cases where a public inquiry must be held include those where there is an un-withdrawn objection from the council of any county district in which any part of the proposed road is situated.
It will be seen, therefore, that the statutory provisions offer a full opportunity for all views affecting new road proposals to be expressed and examined, in particular views put forward by local authorities of any kind. We are now in the course of preparing our Mid-Wirral road proposals for publication in accordance with the law. I do not propose—it would be quite wrong this afternoon—to attempt to express an

opinion on the merits of the argument for and against each of the two alternative suggested routes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider them very carefully in deciding what line through Bebington to include in our published proposals.
I must emphasise one crucial point. Publication of a draft line does not imply that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made up her mind. Indeed, as a general rule, which I certainly would expect to be followed in this case, the Minister is not even asked to approve the choice of alternatives for publication, since her personal involvement at that stage could be held to prejudice her ultimate decision. But within the Ministry a choice between alternatives must be made prior to publication, even in a case like this where the arguments are so finely balanced.
This choice has to be made or else the statutory procedures cannot be carried out and no progress could be made at all. But the publication of one particular alternative, whichever it may be, is entirely without prejudice to the most careful consideration by the Minister of all views expressed and of the outcome of any public inquiry should one be necessary. Only then do we reach the stage of final decision when my right hon. Friend draws her conclusion on the basis of the proposition put forward. I hope that I have set the minds of hon. Members who represent the area at rest. We are very anxious to get the right decision in this case and also to have the views of all those affected, whether they favour or oppose the line originally suggested and wish to put forward any argument about the character of the road, its design, size, line of route and so on.
As my right hon. Friend's mind will be open to those representations, the draft order will be made precisely so that we may get the comments of all those concerned and consider the views of local authorities. If objections by local authorities are sustained, the public inquiry for which the law provides will be held.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Four o'clock.